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
Login

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 10, 2003 23:40:16 UTC

Dick,

Now you made you laugh, and I'm now having fun. You question the scientific terms and almost mock science in your paper, and when the same critical eye of questioning is turned on you, you go 'waa waa waa' and continue to cry like a baby until someone accepts what you have to say without further retort. If this isn't a comedy act, I don't know what is. In any case, let me reply to ridiculous retort and show why it is ridiculous:

***You actually expect intellectual respect when you make your stand on the issue that there is no logical difference between "truth" and "illusion"? That "truth" is a perceptual term and that what is "true" for one might not be "true" another? I would sure love to know your deep intellectual philosopher's definition of "truth"!***

Okay, scientific truth is true, is it not? Then why even bother questioning the credibility of science as you have? Just accept it as scientific truth and leave it at that. Or, do you have a different definition of truth? I'm still waiting to hear what it is. [Which you cannot and will not venture into because if you did so it would completely nullify your conclusions, I suspect that you see that and this is why you respond with the ad hominem attacks.]

***I think that most people believe that "truth" means something universal and your absolute position that it doesn't is actually quite ludicrous. I use only one quality of truth in my deductions and I believe that quality is inherent in almost everyone's definition of truth. (You of course being an exception along with the other nuts in the nuthouse.) The quality I use is very simple: what is true is independent of one's belief. If it's true, it's true and it doesn't make any difference if you believe it or not.***

For a guy who doesn't want to accept what 'most people believe' you sure do find it comforting to turn to such people when the foundations of your argument are in trouble. If the only quality of truth that matters is what is independently true of someone's beliefs, then you must answer how do you know that something is true in the case that you or others have the wrong belief about what is true? Obviously you are depending on other qualities of truth to answer that question, otherwise truth would be a meaningless term (btw, do you know when something is meaningless it means that you cannot use such terms in any sensible manner?).

***The heart of the matter is that you simply can not accept the fact that anything can be logically deduced from that characteristic itself; it is not possible so you will not look! Definitely the sign of an intellectual genius!***

I can accept certain assumptions, and assuming those assumptions are true, then such and such is the case. What you will not do, and find it impossible to do, is examine your assumptions and the definitions of your phrases, to see if those definitions and terms actually restrict your conclusions of your paper. For example, if you cannot show that 'knowable and unknowable data' is a meaningful term with regards to how they can be treated in mathematics, then obviously your conclusions are BS. In this case, you won't even consider how you came to the terms 'knowable and unknowable data' as something to justify, so those who do are immediately attacked in your book as trying to burn you buy the stake. How ludicrous and crackpotish is that??

***I hold that, if my deductions are true, they are true and it doesn't make any difference whether you believe it or not. If they are false, then someone will point out the actual flaw. And as an aside to the rest of you, Yanniru is to physics what Harv is to philosophy so don't depend on authority, think things out for yourself.***

True?? True in the sense of scientifically true in that you are making predictions and those predictions are verifiable? BS to that. You make no predictions, and have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about truth, or proof, or knowable or unknowable data. These concepts are the tricks of your trade in your little magic trick. I'm like the fella in the front row who calls the magicians fakery to his face making the magician red hot mad. The tricks are over. The flim flam man has been found out.

***PS I am glad we don't burn people at the stake any more; if we did, I think Harv would be "Johnny on the spot" with the matches!***

Who is the one with the ad hominem attacks. It seems you want to stiffle free speech and are willing just to respond point by point. You didn't answer even one question of mine on how you define your terms, but went immediately into this "I'm being persecuted" mode. OMG, what kind of joke is that?


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 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