Dick,
>>>H:"because there is always the possibility that our observations are not the whole matter, but the more quantity of confirmed predictions of S the more likely S is true]." D: I have no argument with that at all! My entire argument is with scientists who think they are being rational and working with well defined concepts when they clearly are not. H: "what purpose would you model serve (I know I totally fail to understand your model...)?" D: My model is nothing more than a logical attack on an aspect of science otherwise totally ignored! By ignoring logic it that area, science makes their effort much less productive!>H: "In other words, truth is dependent by another criteria (your model) which is itself a representation of reality." If you regard being internally consistent as "another criteria" then yes, I would say that truth is bound by the criteria of being internally consistent. Internally inconsistent logic is an oxymoron!>>H: but you don't give us the reason why this stuff happens to obey your equations. Why? D: This statement is just plane false! That is exactly what my paper does!>It is no dig! It is an exact statement of what I think the problem is!>We can just as well tag these things with numbers! They are just tags Harv! So long as I do not understand what you are saying, does it make any difference how I code your comments for my records? So, I make the assumption that someday I will understand (though I will more probably be dead first), meanwhile, is it illogical of me to look for rational patterns in those comments? What I am looking for is an internally consistent way of interpreting those things (attaching a meaning to those numbers which I recorded - this is an abstract problem, I don't actually number them Harv). How else am I to come to understand what you are saying.Have a ball and keep on guessing -- Dick |