SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post

Raving Loonie

wrote:
Raving Loonie writes:

I see that you still didn't answer the question, Loonie. No surprise
there, really.

1) You are are exceedingly, cynical ...

... and/or... ( and I don't even know if such is inclusive or
exclusive )

2) You are being very boring about it.
------------------------------------------------------------

I did not presuppose *only* two possibilities; more accurately; I
expressed two possibilites. For myself, the distinction, between
"assumed" and "emphasized" is neither obscure; nor frivolous. ...
Rather, it is immensely important to me personally. I am strongly
sensitized to such things.

These qualities, both motivate me to engage you in this dialogue and
set out the context by which I mean that which I intend.

You will *perhaps* notice a tautological quality to that which I am
asserting. The slightly disparate emphasis; as set out in the circular
flow; serves to define an oxymoron which in turn affords an extreme
amplification in descriptive emphasis.

I have casually known theoretical physicists, theoretical chemists and
mathematicians in the course of my work in RL. For many years I viewed
them all as being quite similar, in the manner they went about their
activities. More recently, I realized that there were some very
striking and consequential, FUNDAMENTAL differences w.r.t. the ways
that they approached their interests. More importantly, I started to
realize that many of those professionals; were either unaware of such a
distinction or had long since, assumed such a cognizance and had
subsequently forgotten about it's existence. I can perceive that such
oversights, do result in serious impediments which also pass by
unnoticed.

When I started reading this newsgroup, a year ago I presupposed that
astronomers were similar in temprement and and skills to physicists;
accepting of couse that theoreticians and experimentalists are very
different 'breeds' of individual. It was a great pleasure for me to
gain the realization that astronomer's are a breed unto their own, by a
wide margin.

Moreover, as I write this, it starts to occur to me that ' astronomy'
and 'cosmology' aren't the same thing at all, nothwistanding that they
share the ' Universe ' as an overlapping interest. They differ in the
approach by which they go about describing that joint concern.

Often, I presuppose that you have a knack for perceiving the obvious.
Elsewhere, Nightingale reminisced about you, ' thus ' ...

Tholen once made a comment of "Always on trial", which bothered me, and
I asked if he didn't ever decide one way or the other at some point,
which is actually kind of funny considering how often I do that kind of
thing myself - some people I decide & fairly quickly, but even when
I've "decided", I'm still always watching and analyzing

I was impressed by thinking that that you might express such a
sentiment. For me, the remark suggested a very skillfull and delicate
appreciation with something that is very difficult. IME, being able to
think in a criticl and strongly convegent manner can be a big
disadvantage.

Below, is an example from everyday, life. I posted it, elsewhere ...

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells
like a duck, it MUST BE A DUCK!

Right?

1) It is a duck ( Ockham's razor )
2) It is sly Mr. Fox fraudulently misrepresenting himself as a duck.
( ? )

How can one select between the two choices?
Cleverness is not allowed! [ I am deliberately squashing any extended
consideration :-) ]

Answer: ... a person cannot. .. that's how it is ACCEPT IT.

( Aside: to discriminate, one needs to use anti-ockham ... Ockhams,
teacher Duns Scotus ... splitting hairs, 'Doctor Subtilis' ) now
THAT'S IRONIC!

Fraud is a very real and a very difficult problem. When viewed in
another context, the same qualities and considerations can be seen to
limit and confound scientific enquiry, profoundly.

The distinction between philosophy and sophistry is a secondary one.
Whether one likes it or not; ' bull**** ' makes the word go round, eh.

T'would seem that a person who has sensibilty concerning the obvious is
apt to have great skill at discrimination. In my uninformed opinion, it
may also provide a plausible, essential ingredient for a great
astronomer.

---------------------------------------

What you have stated below is NOT how it is with myself.

Classic erroneous presupposition that those are the only two
possibilities.

If your intent in saying such a thing was to riddicule, me ...
(... and I do not know your intent ...)

Then in truth, you are mocking yourself.

In this specific circumstance, such holds, regardless of what I might
think, understand, be cognizant in regard, or infer.

For me there are too many inferred possibilities to see what you are
implying.

Only a few of those possibilities would carry the connotation that you
were re-acting and/or being bitter. For myself, those paths are boring
and pointless.

Those inferences, for which it is implict that you are being sincere;
or that you are more skillfull than myself; or that your ability
resides elsewhere than my own; or that I might be over closed minded
about it, or .. , or ...

Should your response to me be cast in this manner; it is tantalizing,
stimulating and worthwhile.

Answer if, when, and, as may you choose ....

This is Usenet. You are free to say or ignore whatever you please. I
have the liberty of an equivalent, pleasure.

Cordially,

RL