You mean like those fictitious peer-reviewed tests on which your arguments rest?
Sorry SY, I misread your post. How can evidence even be collected without a logical underpinning? I didn't mean that in the sense of creating a logical construct and trying to jam evidence into it, that's the AJ/fredex model of 'knowing'.
rdf
Example: spectral lines before QM. The anomalous precession of Mercury before general relativity. Data. Evidence. Which then fed the logic that informed modern physics.
Not fifth hand anecdotes leading to gaseous speculation.
Example: spectral lines before QM. The anomalous precession of Mercury before general relativity. Data. Evidence. Which then fed the logic that informed modern physics.
Not fifth hand anecdotes leading to gaseous speculation.
Doesn't precession rest on logical mathematical underpinnings that define 'anomalous'? Without getting into chicken and egg arguments the larger point is, shown a classic logical fallacy in their reasoning, some still stick by it because they view themselves as scientific. No logic, no science.
Yep. No use using Newtonian logic (all that had been available until then). You gather evidence, it doesn't fit into the logic of existing theories, so the theories have to be modified or discarded. That's when science gets interesting, when there's evidence of stuff that doesn't fit conventional ways of looking at problems. Evidence. Not anecdote or bald assertion.
The idea expressed by many people in this thread, that science and scientists have some sort of hermetic seal around knowledge, is a sad indication of how badly our educational systems fails to teach. The idea that scientists are remiss in not spending their time chasing looney ideas, put out without even a shred of supporting evidence and with no attention to correspondence, is nearly as sad.
Referential failure on my part. Otherwise I can't see where that counters what I wrote. The anomaly in Mercury's precession represented a deviation from the mathematical predictions of Newtonian theory. Theory/logic not only preceded this particular evidence, it's hard to imagine it being taken as evidence of importance without.
SY, that's nice but I don't recall ever writing scientists were remiss in not investigating this. The opposite in fact, many times. I understand the low appeal. Hammer on those who keep insisting they have.
SY, that's nice but I don't recall ever writing scientists were remiss in not investigating this. The opposite in fact, many times. I understand the low appeal. Hammer on those who keep insisting they have.
he seems lately to have adopted this...make obtuse, dense statements from the side that refers to something only HE knows, in a conversation that moves and darts around spectacularly.
Then is able to look down his nose at others. They for some silly reason do not seem to have the same view as he does, that his lofty statements are worth decoding.
I for one cannot be bothered if you cannot clearly say what you want then to me you are admitting what you are saying is not worth much.
I am pretty sure I put his nose out of joint a while ago when he kept on about the administration of the IQ test. He was unable to have that simply thru 'knowledge' of whether the group was dumb or not the administrator was able to influence the group.
It took Jacob to interpret his point so that I understood it, imagine my let down when it was nothing more than the sylvia brown/psychic excuse. 'There is a disbeliever amongst us'.
And they get upset if we ever draw parallels between psychics/astrology etc etc etc??? when they themselves can take that stance?
It's a real shame, as RDF can almost always be counted on for a good reasoned argument, with points that behooves us to examine as they usually contain insights worth having, or at the very least considering.
You didn't understand the meaning of 'referential failure' in regards to the dual possible interpretations of anomaly in SY's post?
Try this: did someone sitting on the back porch look into the sky one night and ask "Hey, what's up with Mercury?" Without the pre-existing logical and mathematical framework of Newtonian physics and the attempts to confirm its predictions the anomaly in Mercury's precession wouldn't have stood out as meaningful data. You see the world independent of and above any conceptual framework? Holy smokes, can we hang out? You're driving.
That diversion aside, the only point was no science without logic. Logical fallacies = no science.
Last edited:
The Beatles sang All we are saying is give peace a chance.
All we are saying is give DBTing a chance, and any objections be in plain language.
Please.
All we are saying is give DBTing a chance, and any objections be in plain language.
Please.
Lack of evidence = "nothing to investigate." Maybe there's something to hear. I doubt it, but never say never. Who knows, maybe TG will give us some meat instead of the gas that... others are satisfied with.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.