|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#661
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 23, 3:48*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Robert Higgins wrote: On Sep 23, 4:23 pm, PD wrote: On Sep 23, 3:05 pm, Robert Higgins wrote: What do you think this means? To me, it means that inductive reasoning is not a "scientific method", because induction BEGINS with the axioms, whereas science DISCOVERS the axioms. No, sir, you have it EXACTLY backwards. Please try reading for comprehension. My bad - mistyping. I meant to say that "deductive" reasoning *where I wrote "inductive". It means induction is easier than deduction. Ah, again we're back to not being able to read for comprehension. |
#662
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 23, 3:54*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote: * If by chance you are referring to Hawking, Hawking WAS wrong at * the time he said information was irreversibly lost in a black hole. Indeed:http://www.space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html Yes, and this tells you what, exactly? |
#663
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
PD wrote:
Ah, again we're back to not being able to read for comprehension. This is interpretation Mr. PD. |
#664
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
PD wrote:
Usenet is the most general and it is the ultimate test? By your decree? Really? Phil, whatever you're taking daily, please double it, because it's not a sufficient dose. You guys have fun with wormholes! |
#665
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 23, 4:33*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote: Ah, again we're back to not being able to read for comprehension. This is interpretation Mr. PD. Uh-huh. So must be confusing inductive and deductive. |
#666
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 23, 4:35*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote: Usenet is the most general and it is the ultimate test? By your decree? Really? Phil, whatever you're taking daily, please double it, because it's not a sufficient dose. You guys have fun with wormholes! Somebody sure is. Might be worthwhile to pursue. |
#667
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 23, 5:28*pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:37*pm, Robert Higgins wrote: On Sep 23, 4:23*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 23, 3:05*pm, Robert Higgins wrote: On Sep 23, 12:40*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote: Robert Higgins wrote: "The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature." "In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms - simple true statements about the way the world works. " "In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements about the way the world works' " (i.e., axioms) * *"really are!" Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor..... Nonetheless deduction remains a valid scientific method. Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor. PD. noted the phrase: "... did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature". Even worse for you is the last sentence I quoted: *"In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not *the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements about the way the world works' really are!" What do you think this means? To me, it means that inductive reasoning is not a "scientific method", because induction BEGINS with the axioms, whereas science DISCOVERS the axioms. No, sir, you have it EXACTLY backwards. Please try reading for comprehension. My bad - mistyping. I meant to say that "deductive" reasoning *where I wrote "inductive". How do you mistype a "d" to be an "i" and an "e" to be a "n" in that order? Apparently, rather easily:-) In my mind, I associated "inductive" (as in use of "mathematical induction") with deductive (as used in P.B/'s posts, for example). Why did I make this horrible mistake? Probably because I am doing several things at the same time. I am sorry for not supplying my full attention and effort to a post on which you have graced us with your wisdom. I apologize for lying when I said I mistyped. If I had been completely honest (and how I dare NOT be completely honest when PD is involved), I would have written that I was thinking of mathematical induction. But I did write "My bad." Why should I have to apologize to you anyway? After I did, you just gave me more ****. So let's see. Now you are saying that deductive reasoning is NOT a scientific method, where before you were claiming that it IS a scientific method. No, I never DID claim that deductive reasoning was a scientific method. If YOU could read for comprehension (which includes context), you would have realized I has inserted "inductive" where I had meant "deductive", thinking of "mathematical induction". First you can't read, Yes, I can. I apologize if it isn't up to your standards, and if I did not expend the effort to treat your words as the Holy Write they are. then you can't type, I apologize; it's true - I don't type well. I don't put as much effort into proof reading posts on Usenet as I should, or apparently, you do. Unlike you, I don't make hundreds of posts a week, having more things of more consequence to do. I don't need to mock non-scientists for my amusement to make myself feel better. What is your problem today? BTW, with all the posting you do, how do you ever have time to actually accomplish something in physics? Almost half the posts on this thread (706 posts so far) are yours - arguing with someone who is wrong, and does not care that he is wrong. then you can't remember what you said yourself just a few hours ago. I remember what I said. Does it make you feel better to attack someone who AGREED with you? WIfe dump you? Girlfriend tell you she's leaving you for Ken Seto? Are you sure you want to be tackling physics? I don't know if I am up to the intellectual heights reached by you, misbegotten chemistry professor that I am. Could you give me a citation to something you've written, other than a Usenet post, that will confirm your great achievements in science? |
#668
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
PD wrote:
Somebody sure is. Might be worthwhile to pursue. Make sure you hand Michio Kaku movies once in a while (breathing holes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BE1KRj5iiM |
#669
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 23, 5:01*pm, Robert Higgins
wrote: On Sep 23, 5:28*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 23, 3:37*pm, Robert Higgins wrote: On Sep 23, 4:23*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 23, 3:05*pm, Robert Higgins wrote: On Sep 23, 12:40*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote: Robert Higgins wrote: "The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature." "In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms - simple true statements about the way the world works. " "In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements about the way the world works' " (i.e., axioms) * *"really are!" Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor..... Nonetheless deduction remains a valid scientific method. Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor. PD. noted the phrase: "... did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature". Even worse for you is the last sentence I quoted: *"In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not *the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements about the way the world works' really are!" What do you think this means? To me, it means that inductive reasoning is not a "scientific method", because induction BEGINS with the axioms, whereas science DISCOVERS the axioms. No, sir, you have it EXACTLY backwards. Please try reading for comprehension. My bad - mistyping. I meant to say that "deductive" reasoning *where I wrote "inductive". How do you mistype a "d" to be an "i" and an "e" to be a "n" in that order? Apparently, rather easily:-) In my mind, I associated "inductive" (as in use of "mathematical induction") with deductive (as used in P.B/'s posts, for example). Why did I make this horrible mistake? Probably because I am doing several things at the same time. I am sorry for not supplying my full attention and effort to a post on which you have graced us with your wisdom. I apologize for lying when I said I mistyped. If I had been completely honest (and how I dare NOT be completely honest when PD is involved), I would have written that I was thinking of mathematical induction. But I did write "My bad." Why should I have to apologize to you anyway? After I did, you just gave me more ****. So let's see. Now you are saying that deductive reasoning is NOT a scientific method, where before you were claiming that it IS a scientific method. No, I never DID claim that deductive reasoning was a scientific method. If YOU could read for comprehension (which includes context), you would have realized I has inserted "inductive" where I had meant "deductive", thinking of "mathematical induction". First you can't read, Yes, I can. I apologize if it isn't up to your standards, and if I did not expend the effort to treat your words as the Holy Write they are. then you can't type, I apologize; it's true - I don't type well. I don't put as much effort into proof reading posts on Usenet as I should, or apparently, you do. Unlike you, I don't make hundreds of posts a week, having more things of more consequence to do. I don't need to mock non-scientists for my amusement to make myself feel better. What is your problem today? BTW, with all the posting you do, how do you ever have time to actually accomplish something in physics? Almost half the posts on this thread (706 posts so far) are yours - arguing with someone who is wrong, and does not care that he is wrong. then you can't remember what you said yourself just a few hours ago. I remember what I said. Does it make you feel better to attack someone who AGREED with you? WIfe dump you? Girlfriend tell you she's leaving you for Ken Seto? Are you sure you want to be tackling physics? I don't know if I am up to the intellectual heights reached by you, misbegotten chemistry professor that I am. Could you give me a citation to something you've written, other than a Usenet post, that will confirm your great achievements in science? My apologies, Robert. I lost track of the attribution of the post and thought I was addressing Phil. I do regret both the error and the attitude. I'll watch more carefully on both counts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism Undisproven | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 26th 09 03:02 PM |
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 1366 | May 2nd 09 12:04 AM |
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof | Eric Gisse | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 3rd 09 06:14 AM |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 09:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 09:00 PM |