From: Torsten
Message: 65298
Date: 2009-10-25
>Erh, what?
> 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.
>No.
> > People who use them in science
>
> That would be scientists.
> > at the same time introduce a bias towards the communis opinio.No, that is how secretarial school works.
>
> 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 toAnd she should be able to take shorthand.
> distinguish wild speculation from theory.
>Why am I getting this idea you are talking about me?
> >> 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 speculationOh, how elegant!
> >> 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.
> >> [...]And now you're getting old. I understand you.
>
> >>>> 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?Did you bite your tongue?
>
> 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 willOh Brian, I'm sorry, I missed your big day! When was that?
> > 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 ownYes, but could you present it here, please? I find it difficult to make out the guiding principle, other that Torsten is an idiot?
> > 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 someoneI knew it! That schoolmarmy attitude had to come from somewhere.
> > very happy as his secretary.
>
> <chuckle> 'One day' is almost 40 years ago now.
>