Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
some thoughts on science
Re: some thoughts on science
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
> tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> studies the mechanism of change.--
you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
> tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> studies the mechanism of change.--
you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 7:22 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>
> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
According to you Newton did not practice science because he did not
use statistical analysis of variance.
Does that not strike you as a bit silly, and demonstrate that your
assertions are ridiculous?
Feel free to carry on in this vein - it's very amusing to see you
demonstrating your dogmatic ignorance - but why not spend some time in
reflection on how this makes you and your cause look.
RF
On Apr 20, 7:22 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>
> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
According to you Newton did not practice science because he did not
use statistical analysis of variance.
Does that not strike you as a bit silly, and demonstrate that your
assertions are ridiculous?
Feel free to carry on in this vein - it's very amusing to see you
demonstrating your dogmatic ignorance - but why not spend some time in
reflection on how this makes you and your cause look.
RF
Re: some thoughts on science
<richardalanforrest@googlemail,com > wrote:
>> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
>> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
>> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>>
>> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
>> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
>>
>> --
>> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
>
>
> According to you Newton did not practice science because he did not
> use statistical analysis of variance.
> Does that not strike you as a bit silly, and demonstrate that your
> assertions are ridiculous?
>
> Feel free to carry on in this vein - it's very amusing to see you
> demonstrating your dogmatic ignorance - but why not spend some time in
> reflection on how this makes you and your cause look.
What's needed for these occasions is a pithy phrase that would succinctly
express Dunning's work in this area:
http :// home.att,net /~profmulder/Incompetence.htm
Anyone want to take a shot at writing "Dunning's Law?"
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
<richardalanforrest@googlemail,com > wrote:
>> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
>> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
>> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>>
>> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
>> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
>>
>> --
>> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
>
>
> According to you Newton did not practice science because he did not
> use statistical analysis of variance.
> Does that not strike you as a bit silly, and demonstrate that your
> assertions are ridiculous?
>
> Feel free to carry on in this vein - it's very amusing to see you
> demonstrating your dogmatic ignorance - but why not spend some time in
> reflection on how this makes you and your cause look.
What's needed for these occasions is a pithy phrase that would succinctly
express Dunning's work in this area:
http :// home.att,net /~profmulder/Incompetence.htm
Anyone want to take a shot at writing "Dunning's Law?"
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Re: some thoughts on science
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>
> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>
>
> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
you can apply math to anything. you can create a concept that models
change, and apply calculus to it. your statement is a non sequitur.
>
>
> --
> Dale
> http :// www .vedantasite.org
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>
> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>
>
> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
you can apply math to anything. you can create a concept that models
change, and apply calculus to it. your statement is a non sequitur.
>
>
> --
> Dale
> http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On 20-Apr-2007, Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>
> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>
>
> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
Do you think that writing something with the caps button pushed somehow
makes it true?
Here, try this-if you roto 13 translate your statement above, then you get
this:
"lbh pna bayl nccyl zngurzngvpf gb vasrerapr, ABG pbawrpgher, ulcbgurfvf
be gurbel, AB ZNGGRE UBJ TERNG GUR SVTHERURNQ GUNG FNLF LBH PNA"
Amazingly, the truth value and meaning remain the same. The only real
diffference is that now it sounds like the Black Speech of Mordor, which I
will not uttter here....
BTW: Have you decided to skip my earlier suggestion about the hammer?
Skitter the Cat
Lynx sapiens CIncinnatus
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
On 20-Apr-2007, Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:41:09 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>
> > tell it to isaac newton. he invented calculus and that seems to have
> > done pretty well. calculus is the mathematics of change. and science
> > studies the mechanism of change.--
>
>
> you can only apply mathematics to inference, NOT conjecture, hypothesis
> or theory, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE FIGUREHEAD THAT SAYS YOU CAN
Do you think that writing something with the caps button pushed somehow
makes it true?
Here, try this-if you roto 13 translate your statement above, then you get
this:
"lbh pna bayl nccyl zngurzngvpf gb vasrerapr, ABG pbawrpgher, ulcbgurfvf
be gurbel, AB ZNGGRE UBJ TERNG GUR SVTHERURNQ GUNG FNLF LBH PNA"
Amazingly, the truth value and meaning remain the same. The only real
diffference is that now it sounds like the Black Speech of Mordor, which I
will not uttter here....
BTW: Have you decided to skip my earlier suggestion about the hammer?
Skitter the Cat
Lynx sapiens CIncinnatus
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
Re: some thoughts on science
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.20.01.47.39@comcast,net :
> A true
> analysis of variance, must include the variance of the measurement
> apparatus or observation equipment.
And as anyone who has taken intro to statistics will tell you, that term is
specified as "e" -- well, usually a Greek letter, actually, but since we're
working in flat ascii here, "e" it is.
This is the "error" term, which contains measurement error implicit to the
measurement: that includes "variance of the apparatus" or "equipment".
Variance which cannot be ascribed to the causative variables is dumped into
this container (leaving aside the complexities of covariance).
Of course, the analysis of variance sensu Fisher is a linearized model, and
general linear models can be confusing to the newbie. I'd be happy to
recommend some relatively simple texts if you're interested in learning
something about statistics, Dale.
-JAH
seriously. I would. Far better than just blatting, innit?
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.20.01.47.39@comcast,net :
> A true
> analysis of variance, must include the variance of the measurement
> apparatus or observation equipment.
And as anyone who has taken intro to statistics will tell you, that term is
specified as "e" -- well, usually a Greek letter, actually, but since we're
working in flat ascii here, "e" it is.
This is the "error" term, which contains measurement error implicit to the
measurement: that includes "variance of the apparatus" or "equipment".
Variance which cannot be ascribed to the causative variables is dumped into
this container (leaving aside the complexities of covariance).
Of course, the analysis of variance sensu Fisher is a linearized model, and
general linear models can be confusing to the newbie. I'd be happy to
recommend some relatively simple texts if you're interested in learning
something about statistics, Dale.
-JAH
seriously. I would. Far better than just blatting, innit?
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 2:46 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> The historical roots of the word science are related to the Latin term
> "Scientia", meaning "knowing".
The etymological of words frequently bears little relationship to
their modern useage.
> But this is not how science is used in
> practical purposes.
You mean that science is *not* used to find out about how the universe
works? Funny, but I'm a scientist and it most certainly seems like
that to me. What do you know about science that I don't?
> Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing.
What utter nonsense! Inference is drawing conclusions (which may be
wrong, of course ) from evidence. Philosophy is a the creation of a
conceptual structure within which evidence can be interpreted, and is
by definition unprovable and untestable. Neither concept has anything
to do with "absolute knowing".
> Science in modern day purposes is a best practices way of dealing with
> conjecture.
No, it's a way of testing conjectures derived from evidence by
gathering more evidence. SCientists call such conjectures hypotheses.
> In the scientific process, a conjecture, is a hypothetical. A
> hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is
> reproducible, then it is testable, and called a theory.
Nope. If it's not testable it ain't an hypothesis.
If an hypothesis (or more accurately a group of interdependent
hypotheses) stands up to rigorous testing for a long time it can be
considered a theory.
> If a theory has
> been tested, it is said to be founded.
Nope. If it can't be tested it ain't a theory in the first place.
> If a theory has not been tested,
> that theory is said to be unfounded.
Nope. If a conjecture can't be tested, it isn't an hypothesis, let
alone a theory.
> Statistics is the language of
> science.
Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
data.
> An analysis of variance will tell you, if you have designed your
> testing properly, the confidence you can have in the data you observe.
Nope. It will give you statistical information about the nature of the
data you have gathered. It won't tell you anything about the design of
your test: inapropriate use of statistical evidence can be used to
give very misleading results.
> There are two major considerations here. One is that if you have not
> included all variables in your testing, the variance of your data will
> result in a low confidence for your results.
Nope. There are statistical tools which allow you to evaluate the
validity of your data set even if it has missing elements.
> This means to get a high
> confidence interval, some degree of solid inference has to be built into
> your hypothesis.
As you can't build an hypothesis in the first place without "solid
inference", this is just plain silly.
> So you see that nothing can really be known empirically,
> by testing, that is not first known in inference.
Wow! I think that this may be the first sentence in your posting which
is true! Congratulations!
> The second
> consideration to the scientific process lies in exactly how the analysis
> of variance is carried out.
Nope. Much of science can be carried out perfectly well without
statistical analysis.
>A true analysis of variance, must include the
> variance of the measurement apparatus or observation equipment.
It's called calibration of equipment, which is a purely technical
matter having little to do with the hypotheses being tested. Obviously
any scientist needs to know the limits of acuracy of the equiment they
are using.
> And must
> also include the variance of how the observation equipment is, and the
> observation variance for that etc., therefore there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.
So because we cannot calibrate our equipment with perfect precision we
cannot produce any results?
Wierd.
So I guess that if I use a ruler to measure the length of a plesiosaur
propodial none of the statistical analysis of my data set of
dimensions of plesiosaurs is of any validity because my ruler is not
perfectly acurate.
What a strange parallel universe you inhabit.
Have you ever considered learning anything about science or
statistics? You might end up making rather less of a fool of yourself,
but if you want to carry on providing us all with amusement feel free
to wallow in dogmatic ignorance.
RF
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Apr 20, 2:46 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> The historical roots of the word science are related to the Latin term
> "Scientia", meaning "knowing".
The etymological of words frequently bears little relationship to
their modern useage.
> But this is not how science is used in
> practical purposes.
You mean that science is *not* used to find out about how the universe
works? Funny, but I'm a scientist and it most certainly seems like
that to me. What do you know about science that I don't?
> Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing.
What utter nonsense! Inference is drawing conclusions (which may be
wrong, of course ) from evidence. Philosophy is a the creation of a
conceptual structure within which evidence can be interpreted, and is
by definition unprovable and untestable. Neither concept has anything
to do with "absolute knowing".
> Science in modern day purposes is a best practices way of dealing with
> conjecture.
No, it's a way of testing conjectures derived from evidence by
gathering more evidence. SCientists call such conjectures hypotheses.
> In the scientific process, a conjecture, is a hypothetical. A
> hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is
> reproducible, then it is testable, and called a theory.
Nope. If it's not testable it ain't an hypothesis.
If an hypothesis (or more accurately a group of interdependent
hypotheses) stands up to rigorous testing for a long time it can be
considered a theory.
> If a theory has
> been tested, it is said to be founded.
Nope. If it can't be tested it ain't a theory in the first place.
> If a theory has not been tested,
> that theory is said to be unfounded.
Nope. If a conjecture can't be tested, it isn't an hypothesis, let
alone a theory.
> Statistics is the language of
> science.
Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
data.
> An analysis of variance will tell you, if you have designed your
> testing properly, the confidence you can have in the data you observe.
Nope. It will give you statistical information about the nature of the
data you have gathered. It won't tell you anything about the design of
your test: inapropriate use of statistical evidence can be used to
give very misleading results.
> There are two major considerations here. One is that if you have not
> included all variables in your testing, the variance of your data will
> result in a low confidence for your results.
Nope. There are statistical tools which allow you to evaluate the
validity of your data set even if it has missing elements.
> This means to get a high
> confidence interval, some degree of solid inference has to be built into
> your hypothesis.
As you can't build an hypothesis in the first place without "solid
inference", this is just plain silly.
> So you see that nothing can really be known empirically,
> by testing, that is not first known in inference.
Wow! I think that this may be the first sentence in your posting which
is true! Congratulations!
> The second
> consideration to the scientific process lies in exactly how the analysis
> of variance is carried out.
Nope. Much of science can be carried out perfectly well without
statistical analysis.
>A true analysis of variance, must include the
> variance of the measurement apparatus or observation equipment.
It's called calibration of equipment, which is a purely technical
matter having little to do with the hypotheses being tested. Obviously
any scientist needs to know the limits of acuracy of the equiment they
are using.
> And must
> also include the variance of how the observation equipment is, and the
> observation variance for that etc., therefore there can be absolutely no
> confidence in empirical data.
So because we cannot calibrate our equipment with perfect precision we
cannot produce any results?
Wierd.
So I guess that if I use a ruler to measure the length of a plesiosaur
propodial none of the statistical analysis of my data set of
dimensions of plesiosaurs is of any validity because my ruler is not
perfectly acurate.
What a strange parallel universe you inhabit.
Have you ever considered learning anything about science or
statistics? You might end up making rather less of a fool of yourself,
but if you want to carry on providing us all with amusement feel free
to wallow in dogmatic ignorance.
RF
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:44 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
> data.--
as much as the institution of science would like to pass off its
propaganda with statistics, such is invalid
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:44 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
> data.--
as much as the institution of science would like to pass off its
propaganda with statistics, such is invalid
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:44 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
> > data.--
>
> as much as the institution of science would like to pass off its
> propaganda with statistics, such is invalid
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this.
Are you telling us that statistics is *not* a tool used to analyse
data?
If not, what on earth is it?
Or that such analysis is "propoganda"?
Or that statistical analysis is invalid?
By the way, how do you reconcile the fact that ANOVA was *developed
by* an evolutionary biologist with your assertion the evolutionary
biologists don't use ANOVA?
RF
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:44 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
> > data.--
>
> as much as the institution of science would like to pass off its
> propaganda with statistics, such is invalid
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this.
Are you telling us that statistics is *not* a tool used to analyse
data?
If not, what on earth is it?
Or that such analysis is "propoganda"?
Or that statistical analysis is invalid?
By the way, how do you reconcile the fact that ANOVA was *developed
by* an evolutionary biologist with your assertion the evolutionary
biologists don't use ANOVA?
RF
Re: some thoughts on science
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:50:51 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> By the way, how do you reconcile the fact that ANOVA was *developed by*
> an evolutionary biologist with your assertion the evolutionary
> biologists don't use ANOVA?--
God works in mysterious ways
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:50:51 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> By the way, how do you reconcile the fact that ANOVA was *developed by*
> an evolutionary biologist with your assertion the evolutionary
> biologists don't use ANOVA?--
God works in mysterious ways
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some thoughts on science
On Apr 20, 11:07 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:50:51 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > By the way, how do you reconcile the fact that ANOVA was *developed by*
> > an evolutionary biologist with your assertion the evolutionary
> > biologists don't use ANOVA?--
>
> God works in mysterious ways
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
So your God working in "mysterious ways " means that Fisher developed
ANOVA without any idea of what he was doing, didn't apply it at all to
evolutionary biology, and no evolutionary biologist has ever used it?
Why do all the evolutionary biologists I know use such techniques as a
tool in their research? Are they simply suffering from the delusion
that they are using ANOVA, but are in fact using some completely
different technique without knowing it?
And perhaps Isaac Newton used ANOVA without knowing that he was using
it, and without dropping any clues that he was using a method which
was not to be developed for three centuries in his work?
What a facile answer.
After that, how on earth can you expect anyone to treat you as
anything other than a clown?
RF
On Apr 20, 11:07 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:50:51 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
> > By the way, how do you reconcile the fact that ANOVA was *developed by*
> > an evolutionary biologist with your assertion the evolutionary
> > biologists don't use ANOVA?--
>
> God works in mysterious ways
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
So your God working in "mysterious ways " means that Fisher developed
ANOVA without any idea of what he was doing, didn't apply it at all to
evolutionary biology, and no evolutionary biologist has ever used it?
Why do all the evolutionary biologists I know use such techniques as a
tool in their research? Are they simply suffering from the delusion
that they are using ANOVA, but are in fact using some completely
different technique without knowing it?
And perhaps Isaac Newton used ANOVA without knowing that he was using
it, and without dropping any clues that he was using a method which
was not to be developed for three centuries in his work?
What a facile answer.
After that, how on earth can you expect anyone to treat you as
anything other than a clown?
RF
Re: some thoughts on science
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:36:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:44 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
>> Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
>> data.--
>
>as much as the institution of science would like to pass off its
>propaganda with statistics, such is invalid
I see. If no statistical analysis is required (or even
possible) that's why the science is bunk. If such an
analysis is valid and/or required, and is performed *that*
is why the science is bunk.
I think I see your problem - rectal optirosis.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:36:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:44 -0700, richardalanforrest wrote:
>
>> Nope. Statistics is a tool used by some branches of science to analyse
>> data.--
>
>as much as the institution of science would like to pass off its
>propaganda with statistics, such is invalid
I see. If no statistical analysis is required (or even
possible) that's why the science is bunk. If such an
analysis is valid and/or required, and is performed *that*
is why the science is bunk.
I think I see your problem - rectal optirosis.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Re: some thoughts on science
On 20 Apr, 02:46, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing...
Can you justify this statement? Give an example of 'absolute knowing'.
Were you on psychedelics when you posted this? :-)
> ... there can be absolutely no confidence in empirical data.
Do you use any white goods? Travel by any kind of modern transport?
Then you must have confidence in some empirical data, as they all go
through a testing process which involves focussing on empirical data.
Of course a particular white good might fail well short of an expected
failure date, so you should not have absolute confidence in your white
goods lasting until their expected failure date.
In summary, you should not have absolute confidence in any empirical
data, but you should also not have absolutely no confidence.
On 20 Apr, 02:46, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Inference and philosophy are absolute knowing...
Can you justify this statement? Give an example of 'absolute knowing'.
Were you on psychedelics when you posted this? :-)
> ... there can be absolutely no confidence in empirical data.
Do you use any white goods? Travel by any kind of modern transport?
Then you must have confidence in some empirical data, as they all go
through a testing process which involves focussing on empirical data.
Of course a particular white good might fail well short of an expected
failure date, so you should not have absolute confidence in your white
goods lasting until their expected failure date.
In summary, you should not have absolute confidence in any empirical
data, but you should also not have absolutely no confidence.
Re: some thoughts on science
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:46:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
<snip>
>...therefore there can be absolutely no
>confidence in empirical data.
IOW, no one can believe anything he/she sees, hears, tastes,
touches or smells (all of which is empirical data). So why
should anyone pay attention to any religious teachings, much
less the sort of idiocies you post?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:46:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
<snip>
>...therefore there can be absolutely no
>confidence in empirical data.
IOW, no one can believe anything he/she sees, hears, tastes,
touches or smells (all of which is empirical data). So why
should anyone pay attention to any religious teachings, much
less the sort of idiocies you post?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Re: some thoughts on science
Dale Kelly wrote:
> A hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis.
Okay, looks like you've got the 'sentence' concept and punctuation down
(at least for the moment, assuming you don't have another relapse).
Next lesson: Putting actual meaningful content into your sentences!
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Nobel invented dynamite. I won't accept his blood money.' --Dr Gregory
House
Dale Kelly wrote:
> A hypothetical is most often called a hypothesis.
Okay, looks like you've got the 'sentence' concept and punctuation down
(at least for the moment, assuming you don't have another relapse).
Next lesson: Putting actual meaningful content into your sentences!
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Nobel invented dynamite. I won't accept his blood money.' --Dr Gregory
House
