Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hah, You're Insulted? Don't Make Me Laugh!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 30, 2004 18:16:57 UTC

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I presently trust your intellectual honesty about as much as I trust Bruce's.

"1) Webpage: Set C is defined to be a finite collection of an unordered finite collection of the elements of A"

That statement does not exist in my webpage! It is a concoction of your intentionally maladjusted interpretation!

2)"Complete Misrepresentation Harv" Dec.21: Set C is "exactly what you are going to explain" which is "[set] A not as it is, but as to how it appears [which is called 'C' in my model]".

And that statement does not exist in my post of Dec 21! One again, it is a concoction of your intentionally maladjusted interpretation!

And, as I have tried to explain a reasonable number of times, the thing to be explained is A, not as it is, but as it appears: i.e., C is a finite set constructed from elements of A via the sets B. C is the only representation of A available to be thought about.

It is always the presumption of anyone who thinks he is explaining anything that his explanation applies to the source of his information when, in fact, in only applies to what he knows,: i.e., anyone who believes he has all the information is a fool.

I have been very indulgent of your "misunderstandings", giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, at this point, you have made it quite clear that you are making no attempt whatsoever to understand what I am saying at all; but are rather manufacturing assorted misrepresentations convenient to your purposes which can only be to obfuscate any rational discussion.

Finally, your statement, "the pool of possible models that could perform the same function are innumerable" is completely and totally unfounded. If it were not, you could provide one as an example. At this point, I suspect you haven't the intellectual ability to come up with a viable definition of an explanation, much less a model of one. That line was obviously not there for my benefit or to the benefit of your so called attempts to understand. I suspect you have in your head little more than a vague idea of what an explanation is. The only conceivable reason for inserting that unsupportable statement was to influence the ignorant idiots who might happen to read this. A very common tactic of that renown authority on rational thought, the great Bruce. You two need to get together; you would probably get along great,

As I always say, have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins