Aurino,

***Do you agree that "whatevergetsthingsdone" exist?***

I agree it exists.

***Do you also agree that it's perfectly possible, totally within our means, to discover a lot of "whatevergetsthingsdone"?***

The "whatevergetsthingsdone" is a process used to invent/discover "somethingthatisdone".

***Do you also agree that any attempt to discover that which is not "whatevergetsthingsdone" will not result in getting things done, which means it's probably a waste of time?***

No. The reason is that "whatevergetsthingsdone" is dependent on other philosophical issues. The "whatevergetsthingsdone" is not successful in a vacuum. We cannot just approach a phenomena, apply a little "whatevergetsthingsdone" and whoa-la... we have "somethingthatisdone". That is, the "whatevergetsthingsdone" needs to occur in a background of "thingsthatImustassumetobevalid" in order to arrive at "somethingthatisdone". Experiments ("whatevergetsthingsdone") are theory-laden ("thingsthatImustassumetobevalid") in order to arrive at sound scientific results ("somethingthatisdone").

***What I'm trying to understand here is, why do people spend time with things that are not "whatevergetsthingsdone"? What's the point? If they do it for fun, I can understand it, but that is not what it seems. It does seem that they believe that things which are not "whatevergetsthingsdone" matter, and with that I can't possibly agree.***

If they just do "whatevergetsthingsdone" without "thingsthatImustassumetobevalid", then "nothinggetsdone" is what happens. The problem with "nothinggetsdone" is that people are not satisfied with this state.

Warm regards, Harv

• "thatmakesalotofsense'tilthelastline" ...and more to come - carefuluniverse - September 12, 2002 - 22:42 UTC
  • "himikehowareyou" - harvey1 - September 13, 2002 - 02:18 UTC
    • tryingtothinkofasnappyorsuitablereplyIguesshowaboutyou? - carefuluniverse - September 13, 2002 - 05:21 UTC
• You are missing the point - aurino_s - September 13, 2002 - 18:23 UTC
  • Well, I hope there's more.. - harvey1 - September 13, 2002 - 18:46 UTC
    • Correction - harvey1 - September 13, 2002 - 18:47 UTC
      • No argument whatsoever - aurino_s - September 13, 2002 - 19:56 UTC
        • No disagreement - harvey1 - September 13, 2002 - 20:04 UTC