Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (101018)	4/12/2005 10:12:37 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Rather than dwell on your version of cosmicforce's message, I'd rather move on to the polymath question. You won't find too many pro athletes who go on to become engineers. There are reasons for this. Money and other opportunities head the list. But several go to school to become doctors. And lawyers. And businessmen. And artists. Many great athletes are also accomplished musicians. Strange, huh?

To: epicure who wrote (101018)	4/12/2005 10:38:37 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

This reduced to a discussion in the belief of things without evidence which I now put it in the category of a God discussion. That is pointless, IMO. Anything can turn into a God discussion if the point is to argue. It may be impossible to discuss anything if that is a goal. A positive assertion is that A has properties B. Scientists say, "how will you prove it?" or "look this one doesn't". People that aren't scientific, say "some might". A negative assertion is that A doesn't have properties B. Scientists say, "how will we falsify it?" or "look this one does". People that aren't scientific, say "the ones you didn't look at don't". Scientists don't automatically assign attributes B to object A without evidence. This is the scientific/non-scientific division. It is a core principle of science and what distinguishes it from non-science. It doesn't mean that A can't have properties B, but it is deemed unlikely until a test has been established to show that A would have some other properties without B (proof by contradiction) or that after examining many A's no B has been found (circumstantial proof). This is so much a part of my normal thinking that I expect it to be obvious that everyone would follow my reasoning. I can't prove with logic that (A)invisible miniature robots (B) aren't controlling humanity. Someone could easily say, "You don't have any evidence to show they aren't." This is logically true, but is not scientific. The one making the A has (or doesn't have) B property argument has the obligation to show it. At best I can make a weaker circumstantial argument by comparing various A's lying around, and finding no B (or finding B in the case of the negation). This is the rift which I several times pointed out, trying to provide an exit. It is very frustrating when encountered because without this principle the world can work in mysterious ways, all of which must be considered and individually assessed. Ironically, my years of study have cause me to reject this reductionism at some level. It is an interesting problem that can be discussed with people who want to discuss. It is not interesting to discuss with people who want to argue.