|
Hi Harv,
maybe peace is breaking out!
Quote: "I'm not interested in the kind of discussion you are trying create. The problem is that you are talking about, what I consider, meaningless harangue."
Here is the problem: what I am talking about, is trying to make sense of Dr. Richard Stafford's paper. Now, a lot of people think this is "much ado about nothing" it would seem. The mathematician I gave his work to thought his work was "much ado about nothing".
Now; if I am talking about Dr. Dick's work; and if that is "much ado about nothing", then voila: my writing looks like it is about "meaningless harangue"!?
Problem: but what if, in "much ado about nothing", Dr. Dick found most of physics along the way?
What does that say? I think the matter should be proven one way or the other. I try to philosophically analyse his work. He resists getting into a debate that could expose questionable issues in his logic?
My main objective is to get sufficient grasp of his work to give sufficient reasons for an expert to really pull out of it whatever is there that is legitimate.
Quote:
"Why don't you read more analytic philosophy and talk more about those issues?"
Answer: because Dick avoids debate. So I have to keep at it if I am to persuade him to talk (which you had the luxury of but which was largely denied me. Which was frustrating to me as I am confidant I can really get somewhere in exposing what he is up to in that paper. I am not one to give up, even if it means being criticised by others for my persistance.)
As I have no computer and am already well over what I expected to spend; it really hacks me off that not only I have to try so hard to get him to have a rational discussion; but I can get attacked in to the bargain!
I was going to leave this forum; my main reason for remaining was to pull the plug from his paper sufficient to satisfy my gut feeling on it.
This unpleasantness would never have happened if he had only talked to me like he did to you. I felt I could get somewhere in a rational non-evasive debate. Thank you for when you tried to persuade him to talk to me. But he wouldn't listen to you much on that.
I refuse to trash Dr. Dick and I think he has done something curious.
I just wanted to sort out some issues re: his paper. He thinks I need more math but for his first 3 equations I don't think so.
Quote:
"Why don't you read more analytic philosophy and talk more about those issues? I'm interested in solid philosophical discussions. Not all this crazy metaphysics of labelling of known and unknown 'data' that you are concerned with."
Well, I didnt invent that stuff. Dick did. But I found that a textbook called "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" provided an excellent map of what he was doing. Further, a mathematician agreed with me on that!
Words are defined by intersecting different categories. When he talks of "unknown data" he might as well be talking about categories.
So the irony is: it really is phil. 101; his paper; like you once said! And it is phil. 101 type stuff I'm trying to get through to him.
If he would only talk!
Maybe you could ask him; for all our sakes; to settle this thing?
Thank you,
Alan
|
