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
I Already Answered It!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on January 8, 2005 22:20:24 UTC

Question 17: If your model (as stated above) "always explains C (I give a specific finite procedure for generating that explanation)", then is your model explaining elements of set A (as per definition #1), or is your model explaining mere appearances of set A (as per definition #2)? Can you resolve this discrepancy?

I repeat my original answer there is no discrepancy! The discrepancy is a completely fake issue created in your mind for your own devious purposes.

The definitions of A, B and C are specifically created for one purpose, to clarify the fundamental issues inherent in any explanation. All explanations are based on what the explainer is aware of! I denote that by set C. What the explainer is aware of are certain specific sets of information (the information against which he will check his explanation) I denote that as B. Clearly C (what he is aware of) should be the collection of possible tests against which he might test his explanation (so check the definition of C).

And lastly, any rational discussion of explanations in general should certainly include the fact that he might come to learn something which invalidates his explanation-- more B's which he wasn't aware of. A is nothing but the source of elements for B.

Now what is he explaining?? He certainly thinks he is explaining A even though all of A isn't available (otherwise why would he accept invalidation based on a new B). At the same time, any intelligent person would certainly hold that when you got down to hard facts. the the explanation was actually only an explanation of C (what he was aware of). You even strech the vagugeness of English to redefine A to be what he "thinks" he is explaining (i.e., not the source of elements for B)

So, which set he is explaining A or C is purely a contextual question based on the vagueness of the English language. Any rational person should have seen that as obvious. But not you. Perhaps you are stupid enough to confuse those issues but I don't believe it. I think you are just probing the subject in hopes that you can assemble some meaningless straw man which you can tear down.

So that is my opinion! Until I get some evidence that is not the case, I am afraid my opinion of you will not change. And I hope you are not Rowanda though at this time I would find that hard to believe.

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