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
To Tarvo And Harv

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on December 20, 2003 07:55:54 UTC

Quoting Tarvo:

"As much as I know every 10th person has autism, underdevelopment of the primordial part of the brain, so it's natural, it must be so, it's somehow necessary in nature. I saw something also, if something is similar to other thing then he makes a conclusion that these things are the same, though in science we must at least try to show that there are no other possibilities.

YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ME

I DO NOT MAKE A CONCLUSION THAT THESE THINGS ARE THE SAME IF SOMETHING IS SIMILAR TO OTHER THING; I MERELY NOTE THE COMMON GROUND AND REPORT IT.

Example: I succesfully mapped numerous physics laws by regarding, among other things, "electro-" as "generalisation " (or "category") and "magnetic" as "specification" (or "category intersection").

Dr. Richard Stafford wrote a paper about, in his words "the assignment of definitions".

I found a piece on how words are defined in a book "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers. He explains how a definition must exclude what is not essential and include what is essential.

I gave Dr. Stafford's paper to an experienced mathematician.

He was dissapointed in it and felt it was "much ado about nothing". But I explained that this was Dr. Dick's point: that he got physics patterns and much of physics appears to be circular reasoning.

When I told him about the idea that you didn't need math; that it was like John Hosper's explanation of how words are defined; it could be seen as about "intersecting categories", he agreed.

Quoting Tarvo:

"There are some things what you must sometimes explain to such people, they may not understand naturally what other people understand naturally or without thinking, but most often they understand, sometimes better than others."

Well thank you; but please tell me what you think I "don't understand" that "other people understand naturally".

Here are some from me:

Do other people understand "naturally" that they cannot defy those who dictate to them how they must think, act, and feel; where that dictatorship is disguised by a rhetoric of "health" and an imagery of "illness"?

Professor Thomas Szasz, Jeffrey Schaler, and many others do not subscribe to pschiatric fraud.

Do other people understand "naturally" that one cannot dissolve physics into something amazingly simple?

Top physicist Stephen Wolfram has written "A New Kind Of Science" and has been reported as saying it may be incredibly simple (or similar adjective).

Best Wishes,

Alan


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 1994-2018 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