SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (60043)9/26/2002 7:11:08 PM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
I just wondered how long it would take you to say that. Now I know.

But the preceding post about science and knowing and facts and understanding what one is saying, is still quite valid and lucid, imo. Do you want to discuss it? That king is fully dressed.



To: one_less who wrote (60043)9/26/2002 7:12:52 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
If someone said, "The rabbit is an ungulate." I would conclude that 1. they had no idea what an ungulate was, and thus did NOT understand what they were saying (re: the word and idea of an ungulate, as it relates to the word and idea of a rabbit), or 2. that they were delusional, and thought that a rabbit really was an ungulate, or 3. that they were being untruthful for some reason. That is what I think.

I agree with you that they would have their facts wrong. Having your facts wrong is prima facie not understanding what you are saying, unless you think people understand they have their facts wrong, and say things anyway. Understanding the facts of what you are saying is a key component of understanding what you are saying. Of course that is my opinion. You may think facts are irrelevant to understanding. I really don't know if you think an understanding of the facts is irrelevant to an understanding of what one is saying. You seem to have just argued that they are different things. I think they are one and the same thing.