Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365527 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-28 06:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-14 17:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 136 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 06:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-28 09:52 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 23:25 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-29 07:04 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-29 06:06 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-29 10:34 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-30 08:39 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-30 21:43 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 20:57 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 12:18 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 23:16 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:47 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:50 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 23:24 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:21 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 20:59 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-29 07:20 -0500
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:34 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 20:59 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-30 09:00 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 08:32 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-30 21:46 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 13:26 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-30 23:04 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 14:48 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-12 00:37 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-11 18:58 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-12 18:39 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-12 14:15 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 04:19 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 04:31 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 17:32 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 18:31 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-16 06:41 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 04:48 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-12 23:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 03:58 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 02:33 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 17:22 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 20:24 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 13:01 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 22:12 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 15:32 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:42 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 10:01 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 09:58 +0200
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 17:36 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:34 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:44 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:48 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-14 02:31 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 04:36 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-23 20:16 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-24 11:54 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-25 12:12 +0100
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-25 16:31 -0500
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 15:27 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-27 14:03 -0500
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 10:35 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 15:11 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:06 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 18:19 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-12 22:34 -0500
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:21 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-13 11:52 -0400
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 09:01 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-13 16:39 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 10:49 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-13 18:12 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 14:12 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-14 00:22 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 20:00 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-14 03:52 +0000
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 03:11 -0700
Re: where can we find such people paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 03:57 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 04:13 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 07:05 -0400
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 04:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 07:47 -0400
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 05:54 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 15:19 -0400
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 22:12 +0200
Re: where can we find such people pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-14 15:17 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 23:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 10:39 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 20:08 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 11:16 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 21:11 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 12:17 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:11 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 23:14 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:44 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:18 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 23:36 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 23:28 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:56 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 23:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:45 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:32 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-15 22:32 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 14:35 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-16 00:10 +0000
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 23:52 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:56 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-16 00:03 -0700
Re: where can we find such people paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 04:19 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-16 05:01 -0700
Re: where can we find such people paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 05:42 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-16 05:47 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 18:17 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 04:10 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 18:21 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 06:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 09:14 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 07:53 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 13:05 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 14:57 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 22:35 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 06:00 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 06:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-15 14:43 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 20:19 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-15 22:37 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-14 23:30 +0000
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 17:04 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 22:41 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:54 -0500
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 15:35 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 17:53 -0700
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 02:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de9133d9-90f9-4ece-9096-bd1ff6c5a6e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367132 |
W dniu czwartek, 15 października 2015 10:58:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > You don't test axioms. And that one's irrelevant here. > > > > So, according to your brilliant proof, fast boy, > > axioms are unacceptable. Aren't they? > > Wrong again, slow boy. Learn to read. Then look up the words > "axiom" and "axiomatic". I know these word well enough, fast boy. But you wrote "untestable=unacceptable". Should I read it as "untestable=unacceptable unless I accept it as an axiom"? > > > > > Brain is a complicated thingie. But, actually, programmable. > > > > Science and religion have different purposes, but both > > > > are brain applications, and that make them quite similiar. > > > > > > Wrong again. > > > > Because? > > Clearly, because you're retarded, and don't understand either > of them. :) "UUUU!!! Wrong!!!! UUUUUU!!! you don't understand!!! UUUU!!!". Pathetic, fast boy. > > > > They are similar in just one thing: both are > > > attempts to explain the universe. > > > > A bullshit. Though, of course, as our curiosity > > is the best gate to install, both are pretending. > > > > And, about impossible proofs of nonexistence - do > > you want a proof of nonexistence of an even prime > > number greater, than 2? I think such a brilliant > > logician can do it himself. > > Numbers are not phenomena. Neither gods are. > > On the other hand, try to prove the existence of Earth. > > When you've finished looking up "noumenon", go to the > library and settle in for a couple of weeks' reading > and contemplation of Descartes. And will you try to prove the existence of Earth, after I will? > > well... you > > understand exactly nothing. > > *Nobody* understands exactly nothing. Not even you. Is it an axiom or you tested it somehow, my dear fast boy? > > > Instead, as we can > > see, there are some rules installed in your head. > > You believe them, protect them, teach others > > of them, get angry, when someone is questionning > > them, and sometimes you even apply them. That's > > what science is designed for, and that's why > > it is similiar to religion. > > According to that idiotic babble, nursery rhymes, > Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" > Asimov's "Foundation" series, and Beethoven's seventh > symphony are also similar to it. There are a lot of brain applications. Our hardware is almost the same, as chimpansee's. It's software, that makes the difference. > You should go soak your head in a bucket of piss until > enlightenment comes. You've heard similiar things trying to discuss against god believers, haven't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 17:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn209ol.32d.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #367135 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > You don't test axioms. And that one's irrelevant here. > > > > > > So, according to your brilliant proof, fast boy, > > > axioms are unacceptable. Aren't they? > > > > Wrong again, slow boy. Learn to read. Then look up the words > > "axiom" and "axiomatic". > > I know these word well enough, fast boy. But you wrote > "untestable=unacceptable". Wrong again, slow boy. Untestable *hypotheses* are unacceptable as beses for gnostic developmemt. ----remainder of the slow boy's drivel snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 20:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvrfcn$5uf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367219 |
Użytkownik "Ned Latham" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:slrnn209ol.32d.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz... mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > You don't test axioms. And that one's irrelevant here. > > > > > > So, according to your brilliant proof, fast boy, > > > axioms are unacceptable. Aren't they? > > > > Wrong again, slow boy. Learn to read. Then look up the words > > "axiom" and "axiomatic". > > I know these word well enough, fast boy. But you wrote > "untestable=unacceptable". |Wrong again, slow boy. Untestable *hypotheses* are unacceptable |as beses for gnostic developmemt. I understand. So, what fast boys don't accept are "hypoteses", and what they do are "axioms". Quite simple. But, could be even simpler, if you say simply: I believe this, and don't believe that. Well, I believe, your way can make more impression on fast boys of all sort. Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a brain application, and is similiar to religion. And your reactions are typical for both.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367273 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > brain application, and is similiar to religion. So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base your "criticism" of physics on? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 22:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvrln8$ciu$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367277 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > brain application, and is similiar to religion. |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base |your "criticism" of physics on? No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. Now, what is your answer to "what is science" question? Let me guess... "UUUU!!! IT'S NOT A QUESTION!!! IT'S A RANT!!!! UUUU!!!" Did I guess correctly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb210857-3d2d-46ce-b1f7-d66a5a5cef8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367280 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you mean by that. Literally as written it has no content since one can equally easy state that all intellectual activity is a "brain application" (you never said what it meant, you should get in the habit of defining monumental concepts like this one), hence the conclusion is that "all intellectual ability is similar to religion". This may be true but it's then too broad to lead to any conclusions pertaining to specific subdomains of intellectual activity, like physics. IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you practically since day one: what you know about models in general is too broad to be of any consequence in science. You need a MUCH sharper tool. > Now, what is your answer to "what is science" question? > Let me guess... "UUUU!!! IT'S NOT A QUESTION!!! > IT'S A RANT!!!! UUUU!!!" > Did I guess correctly? Whatever that means, I leave it to your doctor to deal with. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7d712f6-f649-4fa7-9c78-d6c5714f43fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367291 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 6:32:12 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. > > Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. > Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". > I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you > mean by that. Literally as written it has no content since one can > equally easy state that all intellectual activity is a "brain application" > (you never said what it meant, you should get in the habit of defining > monumental concepts like this one), hence the conclusion is that > "all intellectual ability is similar to religion". This may be true > but it's then too broad to lead to any conclusions pertaining to > specific subdomains of intellectual activity, like physics. > > IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you > practically since day one: what you know about models in general > is too broad to be of any consequence in science. You need a MUCH > sharper tool. > > > Now, what is your answer to "what is science" question? > > Let me guess... "UUUU!!! IT'S NOT A QUESTION!!! > > IT'S A RANT!!!! UUUU!!!" > > Did I guess correctly? > > Whatever that means, I leave it to your doctor to deal with. > > -- > Jan Seems to me Jan is leaning over backwards to meet you half way. That kind of honesty and open mindedness deserves a second look at Jans words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 10:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvsv9k$k7r$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367304 |
Użytkownik "John Heath" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e7d712f6-f649-4fa7-9c78-d6c5714f43fa@googlegroups.com... > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. > > Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. > Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". > I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you > mean by that. Literally as written it has no content since one can > equally easy state that all intellectual activity is a "brain application" > (you never said what it meant, you should get in the habit of defining > monumental concepts like this one), hence the conclusion is that > "all intellectual ability is similar to religion". This may be true > but it's then too broad to lead to any conclusions pertaining to > specific subdomains of intellectual activity, like physics. > > IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you > practically since day one: what you know about models in general > is too broad to be of any consequence in science. You need a MUCH > sharper tool. > > > Now, what is your answer to "what is science" question? > > Let me guess... "UUUU!!! IT'S NOT A QUESTION!!! > > IT'S A RANT!!!! UUUU!!!" > > Did I guess correctly? > > Whatever that means, I leave it to your doctor to deal with. > > -- > Jan |Seems to me Jan is leaning over backwards to meet you half way. Buhahahahahahahaha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 09:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvsv3t$k3i$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367291 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:bb210857-3d2d-46ce-b1f7-d66a5a5cef8b@googlegroups.com... On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. |Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. |Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". |I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you |mean by that. I mean, that science remains a brain application. |Literally as written it has no content since one can since one can be a relativistic morron and be unable to understand a simple phrase in a common language. |IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you |practically since day one: what you know about models in general |is too broad to be of any consequence in science. And you're a queen of England, too. Aren't you? So, what is "science"? You obviously know, but you won't say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84d111c0-5356-4f08-be11-b639ce09aaa0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367314 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:58:55 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:bb210857-3d2d-46ce-b1f7-d66a5a5cef8b@googlegroups.com... > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. > > |Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > |Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". > |I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you > |mean by that. > > I mean, that science remains a brain application. > > > |Literally as written it has no content since one can > > since one can be a relativistic morron and be unable to > understand a simple phrase in a common language. > > |IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you > |practically since day one: what you know about models in general > |is too broad to be of any consequence in science. > > And you're a queen of England, too. Aren't you? > > So, what is "science"? > You obviously know, but you won't say. Yes, science is a brain application; moreover, an interpretation. What is your interpretation? My interpretation is separated between things that travel vs. optical measures which are devoid of things that travel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c209350-94d5-4248-9cbd-bc721c07fd81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368114 |
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:58:55 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:bb210857-3d2d-46ce-b1f7-d66a5a5cef8b@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > > > > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > > > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. > > > > |Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. > > > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > |Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". > > |I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you > > |mean by that. > > > > I mean, that science remains a brain application. > > > > > > |Literally as written it has no content since one can > > > > since one can be a relativistic morron and be unable to > > understand a simple phrase in a common language. > > > > |IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you > > |practically since day one: what you know about models in general > > |is too broad to be of any consequence in science. > > > > And you're a queen of England, too. Aren't you? > > > > So, what is "science"? > > You obviously know, but you won't say. > > Yes, science is a brain application; moreover, an interpretation. What is your interpretation? My interpretation is separated between things that travel vs. optical measures which are devoid of things that travel. With our unaided eyesight (which is in reality very loaded) we observe the stars in the sky. We see these objects as in a single picture- a single picture brain application. All of these objects do not change position in the sky(absolute). Somehow, with the advent of the speed of light c, we have invented a way to observe single pictures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <147c9a31-d1ec-4952-a630-86420aefae25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368123 |
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:34:39 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:58:55 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:bb210857-3d2d-46ce-b1f7-d66a5a5cef8b@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > > > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > > > > > > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > > > > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. > > > > > > |Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. > > > > > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > |Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". > > > |I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you > > > |mean by that. > > > > > > I mean, that science remains a brain application. > > > > > > > > > |Literally as written it has no content since one can > > > > > > since one can be a relativistic morron and be unable to > > > understand a simple phrase in a common language. > > > > > > |IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you > > > |practically since day one: what you know about models in general > > > |is too broad to be of any consequence in science. > > > > > > And you're a queen of England, too. Aren't you? > > > > > > So, what is "science"? > > > You obviously know, but you won't say. > > > > Yes, science is a brain application; moreover, an interpretation. What is your interpretation? My interpretation is separated between things that travel vs. optical measures which are devoid of things that travel. > > With our unaided eyesight (which is in reality very loaded) we observe the stars in the sky. We see these objects as in a single picture- a single picture brain application. All of these objects do not change position in the sky(absolute). Somehow, with the advent of the speed of light c, we have invented a way to observe single pictures. That a simultaneous image which is coherent is actually a multi-time-like distortion of reality?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c15b43d6-89e3-47c8-b04c-8a4e6c035c94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368123 |
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:34:39 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:58:55 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:bb210857-3d2d-46ce-b1f7-d66a5a5cef8b@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:ecc7a669-7a09-4fd0-ad88-ffdc4879b3e6@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, no matter, how you puff, science remains a > > > > > brain application, and is similiar to religion. > > > > > > > > |So this means everything is "similiar to religion". Is this what you base > > > > |your "criticism" of physics on? > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not what I base my criticism of physics on. > > > > > > |Thank you for yelling at me for not knowing what's inside your head. > > > > > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > |Now, to the point: you said "science remains a brain application". > > > |I'm reasonably certain most readers here would like to know what you > > > |mean by that. > > > > > > I mean, that science remains a brain application. > > > > > > > > > |Literally as written it has no content since one can > > > > > > since one can be a relativistic morron and be unable to > > > understand a simple phrase in a common language. > > > > > > |IOW we are back to what I and everyone else has been telling you > > > |practically since day one: what you know about models in general > > > |is too broad to be of any consequence in science. > > > > > > And you're a queen of England, too. Aren't you? > > > > > > So, what is "science"? > > > You obviously know, but you won't say. > > > > Yes, science is a brain application; moreover, an interpretation. What is your interpretation? My interpretation is separated between things that travel vs. optical measures which are devoid of things that travel. > > With our unaided eyesight (which is in reality very loaded) we observe the stars in the sky. We see these objects as in a single picture- a single picture brain application. All of these objects do not change position in the sky(absolute). Somehow, with the advent of the speed of light c, we have invented a way to observe single pictures. The thought that in an unaided eye picture would lead to a knowledge where all lighted objects have a unique emission point based on the universal measure of the speed of light is most ridiculous and most complicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 02:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2977606.CyFfJNf6Zz@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #366867 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > Wrong. It is rejection of the god hypothesis. It's up to >> > those who put that hypothesis to show cause to accept it. >> >> Why? > > You lurk in a physics NG and you need to ask that? > > *sigh* > > Okay then, slow boy, pay careful attention. > > Syllogism 1: > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no > physical effect on the universe. > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > Syllogism 2: > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some > physioal effect on the universe. > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > extant phenomenon. > > Syllogism 3: > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > phenomenon that doesn't exist. > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > to accept it. > > Quite simple, really. Too simple as, like your other arguments so far, it is flawed. Here, it is *your* claim of *non-existence* that would need to be substantiated *by you*. And that is difficult to do, to say the least. Because there is the possibility, and I think belief does not need to enter into it, that beings exist that we would consider gods, or god-like if you will, because we do not have the knowledge or perception to understand their technology (this is a common trope in science-fiction). In particular, humans need not be the most biologically and technologically advanced species in the universe; only human hubris assumes that, and this hubris is apparent from your syllogisms. Now, that does not mean that those beings have to exist. But if they exist, there is no way for us to know for sure which one of those assertions is true until either we have evolved enough or we have encountered them and it has been explained to us. Therefore, failing hard evidence of sufficient evolution and such encounters, we must question the idea whether it is worthwhile to take those hypothetical beings into account in the first place. (And certainly, quoting Gene Roddenberry, “We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”) That does not mean, however, that we should stop appreciating the wonders of the universe, searching for answers to our questions, and for new questions. See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot> But *please* keep those purely philosophical discussions out of sci.physics.ALL and sci.physics.*relativity* in particular. It is wrong of you to claim that all science is philosophy, and that therefore they would be on-topic here: The natural sciences, like physics, separated themselves from mere philosophy more than three centuries ago, with mathematics («Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica», Isaac Newton, 1687). F'up2 <news:alt.sci.philosophy>; modify if you know a better newsgroup. As for “begs the question” vs. “raises the question”: I knew the “begging the question” fallacy already, but thanks for correcting my vocabulary there. PointedEars -- Two neutrinos go through a bar ... (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 04:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1ustj.bis.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #366995 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Wrong. It is rejection of the god hypothesis. It's up to > > > > those who put that hypothesis to show cause to accept it. > > > > > > Why? > > > > You lurk in a physics NG and you need to ask that? > > > > *sigh* > > > > Okay then, slow boy, pay careful attention. > > > > Syllogism 1: > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no > > physical effect on the universe. > > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of > > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > > > Syllogism 2: > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some > > physioal effect on the universe. > > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. > > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > > extant phenomenon. > > > > Syllogism 3: > > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > > phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. > > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > > to accept it. > > > > Quite simple, really. > > Too simple as, like your other arguments so far, it is flawed. Wrong again. It's your reading and comprehension that are flawed. > Here, it is *your* claim of *non-existence* that would need to > be substantiated *by you*. Wrong. Read the above again, this time with your eyes open and your brain engaged. ----"superior beings" fallacy snipped---- > It is wrong of you to claim that all science is philosophy, Nope. > and that therefore they would be on-topic here: I didn't make that claim. > The natural sciences, like physics, separated themselves from > mere philosophy more than three centuries ago, I agree that "Philosophy" has drifted away from philosophy. ----snip---- > As for "begs the question" vs. "raises the question": I knew < the "begging the question" fallacy already, but thanks for > correcting my vocabulary I shouldn't need to. How the fuck can we argue meaningfully and coherently if random statements are flawed by incorrect usage?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 20:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1564724.o8QESe2AXR@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #367136 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> As for "begs the question" vs. "raises the question": I knew >> the "begging the question" fallacy already, but thanks for >> correcting my vocabulary > > I shouldn't need to. How the fuck can we argue meaningfully and > coherently if random statements are flawed by incorrect usage? You are such a crackpot, you cannot even take a “thank you” for what it is, and reply with something along the lines ”you are welcome”. But, JFTR, I have found out today that you are wrong about this as well. While ”begging the question” is the name of a logical fallacy, it also is a phrase that means to “raise a point that has not been dealt with”, which is precisely how I used it. I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy: <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/finder-of-new-worlds.html?_r=1> Play the video on the top, and you will hear “begging the question” used in the same way as I did. This usage is confirmed by dictionaries: <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15> If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this posting will be along the lines of “Sorry, I stand corrected”. F'up2 alt.sci.philosophy PointedEars -- Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? A: It doesn't conduct itself. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 11:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2ndt8.pd7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #367929 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > As for "begs the question" vs. "raises the question": I knew > > > the "begging the question" fallacy already, but thanks for > > > correcting my vocabulary > > > > I shouldn't need to. How the fuck can we argue meaningfully and > > coherently if random statements are flawed by incorrect usage? > > You are such a crackpot, Quit projecting, Pointy Head. > you cannot even take a "thank you" for what it is, You didn't write a "thankyou"; you wrote an excuse. > and reply with something along the lines "you are welcome". I do, when it's appropriate. > But, JFTR, I have found out today that you are wrong about > this as well. You're wrong again, Pointy Head. > While "begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy, > it also is a phrase that means to "raise a point that has not > been dealt with", which is precisely how I used it. I know all that, Pointy Head. The fact that semilterate retards misuse a word or phrase does not require those of us who actually understand the language to accept their misuses as legitimate. The simple fact is, Pointy Head, we don't need to misuse the term "begs the question" because we have the simple, straightforward and crystal clear term "raises the question". But then, there is that dreadful tendency among retards to show off what they think is their erudition. > I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy: You're wrong again, Pointy head. That statement should be in the simple past tense, not the present perfect tense. ----snip---- > This usage is confirmed by dictionaries: > > <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ > beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15> *sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering to fads in gibberish. > If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this > posting will be along the lines of "Sorry, I stand corrected". That would be a lie. Unlike you, I don't do lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 12:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1937854.hWKDz1mm3H@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #367997 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy: > > You're wrong again, Pointy head. That statement should be in the > simple past tense, not the present perfect tense. Wrong again. “The Present Perfect is […] also used when an activity has an effect on the present moment.” See <http://www.englishtenses.com/tenses/present_perfect> etc. >> This usage is confirmed by dictionaries: >> >> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ >> beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15> > > *sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering > to fads in gibberish. It is not a fad: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=begs+the+question+why%2C+begs+the+question+how&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbegs%20the%20question%20why%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbegs%20the%20question%20how%3B%2Cc0> See also: <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290> >> If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> posting will be along the lines of "Sorry, I stand corrected". > > That would be a lie. Unlike you, I don't do lies. [Proper English would be “I do not lie” or “I don’t lie”. So much for your understanding of the English language.] You replied to my posting in <news:slrnn1lttg.57e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>: > > That begs the question > > *Raises* the question. > > Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion > is assumed in the premise. IOW, you denied that my use of the expression would be a correct one. (That was a “false dilemma” fallacy of yours, denying the possibility that there could be several interpretations.) And then you replied to my posting in <news:slrnn2ndt8.pd7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>: > > While "begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy, > > it also is a phrase that means to "raise a point that has not > > been dealt with", which is precisely how I used it. > > I know all that, Pointy Head. […] IOW, you *knew* that you were wrong at the time when you were claiming this. Claiming something that one knows is wrong constitutes a lie. You lied again when you said that you “don’t do lies” because in the very same paragraph you effectively said that you knew you were wrong. And you lied again when you said that I had lied. Because I could not have lied about the same subject that you knew were wrong about while claiming I was wrong. So *evidentially*, you *do* lie. Again and again. It has been established by now, at the latest, that you are a habitual liar. Also, you continue to crosspost without Followup-To despite Followup-To being set to the appropriate newsgroup, and you continue to throw insults. By that we have established that there really is not a shred of decency left in you, because decent people do not lie habitually, and they at least try to observe technical and social standards, which includes that they do not throw insults habitually. So Q.E.D. And *PLONK* (F'up2 set appropriately, which I assume you will ignore again). PointedEars -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 16:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2qihe.56q.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #368054 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: Your surreptitious snip of your inabiity to sustain your position on "begging the question" is noted, Pointy Head. > > > I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy: > > > > You're wrong again, Pointy head. That statement should be in the > > simple past tense, not the present perfect tense. > > Wrong again. The Present Perfect is also used when an activity > has an effect on the present moment. Get it into your pointy little head, Pointy Head: the fact that semilterate retards misuse elements of a language does not require those of us who actually understand the language to accept their misuses as legitimate. ----snip---- > > > This usage is confirmed by dictionaries: > > > > > > <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ > > > beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15> > > > > *sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering > > to fads in gibberish. > > It is not a fad: ----messy web reference snipped---- So "begs the question" has been arounnd for a while. BFD. Doesn't change the fact that your misuse of it is faddish, and confined to semiarticulate muttonheads who think that pompous verbosity is impressive. > > > If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this > > > posting will be along the lines of "Sorry, I stand corrected". > > > > That would be a lie. Unlike you, I don't do lies. > > [Proper English would be "I do not lie" or "I don't lie". "Proper"? Don't be ridiculous. The statement can be made in perfectly good English is many ways; one, for example is, "I don't tell lies". You *do* recognise that as "proper" English, right? Note the form, dipshit. You can replace "tell" with any other suitable verb; "use", for example, or "rely on", or "accept" ... Or "do". > So much for your understanding of the English language.] Much wider and deeper than yours, bozo. > You replied to my posting in > <news:slrnn1lttg.57e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>: > > > > That begs the question > > > > *Raises* the question. > > > > Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion > > is assumed in the premise. > > IOW, you denied that my use of the expression would be a correct one. Correct. It's a misuse. The fact that others have perpetrated the same idiocy before you doesn't change that. Even the fact that it's become so well known that people usually know what the utterer means by it doesn't change that. The fact is that "begs the question" and "raises the question" both have clear, precise and distinct definitions. Using the former as a synonym of the latter is a misuse. > (That was a "false dilemma" fallacy of yours, denying the possibility > that there could be several interpretations.) Wrong again, Pointy Head. It was part of a criticism of your misuse of the term. (Your "interpretation" is not only about the misuse of the term, it is about that deplorable tendency of the semiarticulate to show off, as I said before, what they think is their erudition.) > And then you replied to my posting in > <news:slrnn2ndt8.pd7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>: > > > > While "begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy, > > > it also is a phrase that means to "raise a point that has not > > > been dealt with", which is precisely how I used it. > > > > I know all that, Pointy Head. > > IOW, you *knew* that you were wrong at the time when you were > claiming this. Wrong again, Pointy Head. I wasm't wrong. > Claiming something that one knows is wrong constitutes a lie. True. You should stop lying. For example, you should not have concealed that what I wrote was "I know all that, Pointy Head. The fact that semilterate retards misuse a word or phrase does not require those of us who actually understand the language to accept their misuses as legitimate." (The reason for your surreptitious snip above is now clear.) > You lied That's a lie. > again And that's another lie. > when you said that you "don't do lies" because > in the very same paragraph you effectively said that you knew > you were wrong. And that's yet another lie. What I "effectively" said is that I know about the misuses that you were trying to justify your own misuse with. ----further denialist babble snipped---- > Also, you continue to crosspost without Followup-To despite > Followup-To being set to the appropriate newsgroup, The NGs that you spew your lies and idiocies into *are* the appropriate ones for contesting them, you lying maggot. You don't get to hide behind redirection. > and you continue to throw insults. You're a lying maggot, deserving of nothing but contempt. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98258b21-9204-483d-9365-59f87d9c8711@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367997 |
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 9:54:03 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > This usage is confirmed by dictionaries: > > > > <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ > > beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15> > > *sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering > to fads in gibberish. Looks like the OED does not budge: :-) " 6. To take for granted without warrant; esp. in to beg the question: to take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof. 1581 W. Charke in A. Nowell et al. True Rep. Disput. E. Campion (1584) iv. sig. F f iij, I say this is still to begge the question. 1680 Bp. G. Burnet Some Passages Life Rochester (1692) 82 This was to assert or beg the thing in Question. 1687 E. Settle Refl. Dryden's Plays 13 Here hee's at his old way of Begging the meaning. 1788 T. Reid Aristotle's Logic v. §3. 118 Begging the question is when the thing to be proved is assumed in the premises. 1852 H. Rogers Eclipse of Faith (ed. 2) 251 Many say it is begging the point in dispute. 1870 F. C. Bowen Logic ix. 294 The vulgar equivalent for petitio principii is begging the question." -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web