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
The Nadir Of Rational Thought?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on May 13, 2003 11:13:24 UTC

Harv,

I do not understand why you continue this farce. I debated not bothering to answer your comments. I answer for only one reason and one reason only: it is a sad fact but many uneducated people rely on authority for answers to their questions and pseudo authorities such as yourself and Yanniru can truly confound them.

Harv: "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."

So you would propose that science has never made an error? Or that what the authorities say should not be looked at carefully? That is certainly the last resort of a bankrupt argument.

Harv: "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 have continually answered this question with the fact that my deduction does not depend at all on the exact details of the definition of truth but merely on the characteristic that, "what is true cannot be left to opinion and must be fixed by the nature of reality itself".

Harv: "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?"

If you had taken even the slightest trouble to follow my proof, it would be quite clear that the proof depends not at all on being able to identify the truth; no more than Alexander's parting of the Gordian knot depended on the paths of the threads making up that knot. Abstract thought and the concept of working with "unknowns" seems to be beyond your comprehension. You have not apparently learned to add two and five without asking "Two and five what?"

Harv: "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?)."

Then you are trying to say that the concept "truth" as held by the common public is meaningless? I repeat, the heart of the matter is that you simply can not accept the fact that anything can be logically deduced from the unchangeable characteristic alone; it cannot be possible, so you choose not to look! A definite sign intellectual brilliance!"

Harv: "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 my proof, I do not treat "knowable" and "unknowable data" differently in any way. The only characteristic I require is that "knowable" (the things which are true) are not open to my opinion but are fixed by reality.

***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.***

Harv: "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."

This statement is totally false! At the end of part 3 of chapter 1, I state that "in accordance with the world view of modern science, under the constraints I have placed on myself, I should be able to deduce absolutely nothing of significance!!" Yet all kinds of things are in fact deduced and anyone who does not find that fact astonishing, has no understanding of science at all.

You are no more than a front row heckler with absolutely nothing of significance to say. In fact, I have serious doubts that anyone here has anything of significance to say. If anyone does have any interest in understanding anything, I will occasionally browse this forum and answer any intelligent questions I see.

I am glad you are having fun -- Dick

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 1994-2022 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