Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread.

From: Paul Lutus (nospam_at_nosite.zzz)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:49:05 -0700

Edward G. Nilges wrote:

> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
> news:<10kmhj75il4o0a5@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Edward G. Nilges wrote:
>>
>> / ... snip overly long section of dross
>>
>> > Furthermore, Popper, a foolish man, STARTS with a reified and
>> > nonsensical view of truth.
>>
>> Post your arguments, not your biases. You have yet to articulate anything
>> resembling an argument. Describing Popper as "a foolish man," and the
>> remainder of your tract, only reveals your ignorance of the elements of
>> reasoned debate.
>
> Gee, you're an expert on reasoned debate, where you think "argument
> from authority" means appeal to ANY authority, ot inappropriate
> authority?

To repeat myself for the ADHD victim, this is a scientific discussion and in
science, *any* appeal to authority is an invalid appeal. Why? Because,
unlike the fields that are your specialty, there either is, or is not,
evidence to support any scientific assertion.

If there is *no* evidence, any scientist that took a position on the matter
would be guilty of sprinting ahead of the evidence, which would ipso facto
invalidate his status as an authority (and as a scientist).

If there *is* evidence, since the evidence speaks for itself, any scientist
who took a position would be ignored, which would ipso facto invalidate his
staus as an authority.

This is because science is not guided by scientists, it is guided by
evidence. It is clear this is why you cannot grasp the baic principles of
science, and why you think the philosophical and soft-"science" meaning of
appeal to auhthority is universal. It is only universal among those not
educated in useful subjects.

To summarize, in science, *any* appeal to authority is a logical error. To
repeat my example since you refuse to address any evidence under any
circumstances: when eminent, world-famous, Nobel-Prizewinning chemist Linus
Pauling suggested the use of vitamin C as a remedy for the common cold, he
was ignored by scientists. Why did they do this and risk the wrath of
uneducated people such as yourself? Because there is no evidence that
vitamin C had any efffect on the common cold, and Linus Pauling's standing
(and eminence) as a scientist cannot possibly enter into the issue. Why?
Because in science, *any* appeal to authority, under any circumstances, is
a logical error.

As to astrology, and again to repeat a bit of evidence that you have
studiously ignored, the field would have redeemed itself and contradicted
decades of hard scientific evidence that there is no there there, by
successfully predicting the WTC attack of 9/11/2001. But this did not
happen, in spite of the fact that 15,000 professional astrologers could
have doubled their fees on the morning of 9/12/2001. The reason it did not
happen is because astrology is bunk -- it does not posses a theoretical
basis, any testable assertions, or any evidence for efficacy whatsoever.

And, had you not skipped all the difficult courses while you were in school,
you would know that the distinction between a scientific theory and
cocktail party chatter is ... testable, falsifiable assertions. Assertions
that, if they fail, will falsify the theory that makes them. The assertions
of astrology that can be shoehorned into this definition by investigators
have all proved false when data were collected.

This is how science works.

> Do tell.

Learn how to argue. Hint: debate is not cocktail chatter.

>>
>> > His "truth" is a finite (and probably small) list of scientific truths
>>
>> Popper doesn't address scientific truths per se, and scientifically
>> educated people understand the term is meaningless -- there are no
>> scientific truths, only theories supported by evidence. Once again your
>> ignorance and your lack of competence to discuss this matter are in
>> evidence.
>>
>> "Scientific truth," "scientific fact" and related terms are meaningless
>> within science, and are useful only insofar as they reveal the ignorance
>> of the speaker. Sort of like claiming that there is evidence for
>> astrology.
>
>
> Let's see, there's no scientific truth, but we can still diss
> astrology?

Two replies:

1. No one has chosen to "diss" astrology here, to use your colorful,
argumentative term. Given a population and assuming that IQ testing has
legitimacy (a position for which there is little evidence), do you
therefore take the position that everyone to the left of the mean on the
distribution has been "dissed"? This is unbelievably brainless.

2. Item (1) above notwithstanding, certainly. See the evidence above, the
evidence you are incompetent to address. You have once again proven your
complete lack of a practical education, for which sitting in classes is not
a legitimate substitute.

> My word.

No, your ignorance and your inability to argue. Your failure to reply
on-topic to even one of my topical arguments is sadly noted. 

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How to find the external interface
    ... >> Like a scientific basis for astrology, which you assert regularly, then ... except the conspicuous lack of scientific evidence for any of the claims ... This page shows "name"'s view of science very clearly. ... like him, "science" is something that "scientists" do, or don't do. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: God/No God
    ... the available scientific evidence indicates ... astrology that I have met think it's entirely natural. ... Don't take it personally though - that's what scientists do with all ... system of self knowledge into the round hole of religion, ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... inference and not just a sophomoric fallacy. ... the works of several hundred scientists identified with the concept ... Appeal to authority, appeal to numbers, ... It says you have no evidence to support your silly, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... scientists and other humans are too selfish to exclude themselves from anywhere. ... Where does this evidence come from if the hypothesis hasn't been ... That, in the absence of humans, wildlife would ... ... > .differing levels of disturbance with equivalent natural habitats to ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)