Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Correction Harv!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on May 11, 2002 07:13:13 UTC

Quoting: "Take care Dick. I don't know why you don't talk to Alan. He seems quite eager to agree with you. I'm just not a believer. I'm sorry. You seem to like talking to believers."

No Harv, I am not a believer.
Many of your objections are shared by me; as you may recall; but nonetheless I think I understood that (dis-regarding his errors in philosophising) he has still done a simple and clever thing.

I have a perspective on what Dr. Dick is on about. I think what he has done is in some respects extremely simple; and can be demonstrated much more clearly than he does it.

The first mathematician who I gave his work to, DID look carefully at it, and DID agree with an interpretation I made of it. I did not claim to have figured out all the math details; just the underlying game being played that is actually very simple.

I am not "quite eager to agree" with Dick. I am quite eager to have a NO-EVASIVE debate. But regretably the money for this isn't really there now.

It is very sad that Dick seems so unwilling to admit mistakes. I'm sure he could admit this one: in his paper he mispells "bizzarre" as "bazaar" or similar. A mistake! Surely he will admit this!

But he has made contradictory statements in this forum. He just goes silent when I point them out to him.

He seems blinded by the desire to believe in the complicated version of his work, from considering other simpler perspectives on it.

He doesn't answer plain questions.

Harv, you made a good point once that I see as being: a one-off communication that by definition is never repeated or repeatable, thus never further-communicable; would be missed by his model (as it is non-model-able by definition) yet can theoretically exist (and such-like may be commonplace).

So a one-off non-modellable communication should be taken seriously (you might receive one); yet is a conceivable concept that cannot by definition be modelled.

Dick used to talk to me at Counterbalance; I think I could have got somewhere in non-evasive debate with him. They say the man who never made a mistake never made anything; but they also say that you can lead a horse to water .....

See Ya


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 1994-2018 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