Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests

At 1:42:08 PM on Saturday, October 24, 2009, Torsten wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 5:46:39 AM on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Torsten wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:

>> [...]

>>>>>>> I am not your errand boy. If you want to know what I
>>>>>>> mean, read what I wrote.

>>>>>> I'm reading it. And then you tell me I read it wrong,
>>>>>> since you rarely if ever mention if you are writing
>>>>>> something as wild speculation / working hypothesis /
>>>>>> part of your theory.

>>>>> That's exactly what it is.

>>>> Um, those are three different things.

>>> No.

>> Of course they are, both in everyday usage and
>> specifically in science.

> They are in everyday usage, where they indicate
> progressively greater distance from the communis opinio.

That is a *consequence* of their meanings, not the essential
difference.

> People who use them in science

That would be scientists.

> at the same time introduce a bias towards the communis
> opinio.

As indeed there should be, respecting the core of a
well-established theory. That's how science works. But
this is a separate issue from the crackpot's inability to
distinguish wild speculation from theory.

[...]

>> This would also explain your annoying habit of presenting
>> your ideas in the language of working hypothesis or even
>> theory but failing to make any sort of coherent case for
>> them

> Erh?

Yes. People who confuse wild speculation with theory tend
to have little idea of what constitutes an argument. It
seems that some even confuse a Misthaufen of Ruhlenesque
look-a-bit-alikes with an argument.

>> and scurrying for the cover of wild speculation
>> when pressed for (or with) real evidence.

> Ah, you want to do ad hominem?

Had I wished to do so, I'd offered made one.

>> [...]

>>>> Or, from a more pragmatical viewpoint...

>>>> Wild speculation: "I'll be tossing out some thoughts.
>>>> Interrupt me if you hear anything that makes sense."

>>>> Working hypothesis: "I can explain this as well as that
>>>> by assuming B. Can you add anything in support of or in
>>>> opposition to B?"

>>>> Theory: "We have establish'd from plenty of evidence
>>>> that this is how it goes, and counterarguments have
>>>> been rebuked thus far."

>>> Wrong. You can't establish anything from evidence.
>>> Popper.

>> You're dodging the obvious intent by quibbling about a
>> careless expression of the idea.

> Erh, what intent?

The one that's obvious to anyone without your protective
blinkers.

> And obvious?

See above. And below, from my previous post:

>> Replace the first clause by 'We have plenty of evidence
>> that validates this theoretical framework'.

> I don't think you should be bitter, Brian.

I'm not; I'm merely a bit disgusted.

> You have many talents, and I know that one day you will
> present one of your own ideas in this forum.

Been there, done that, at least once. Made an actual case,
too.

> For instance, what do you say you present here your own
> theory of correct scientific methodology, specifically
> about how evidence validates a theory?

'Tisn't mine, I'm afraid; I hate to disappoint you, but it's
a standard notion.

> If all else fails, I know you will one day make someone
> very happy as his secretary.

<chuckle> 'One day' is almost 40 years ago now.

Brian