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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (515973)	9/24/2009 1:29:29 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578214

>>>"Non Sequitor" What non sequitur? You are the one delving into epistemology, not I. Because that is what this statement is. "Facts are absolutes and do not change, which only exist in the ideological sense and are not materialistically testable." We were discussing a topic that you had been engaged in with someone else. I simply noted that you had contradicted yourself logically by saying first that 'not a settled fact was not true.' Well, the conclusion there is, whatever the issue is it must be a settled fact. However, you went on to say that it could change, which is an admission that at this point it hasn't been settled... you contradicted yourself. I clarified that for you but rather than saying thanks and fixing your error, you went off on a tangent to criticise me personally and challenged me to defend my point. Which I did. When I had provided the explanation of my point you responded mostly by saying the same thing I had said but implying you had proven my statement false, beginning with the now typical statement from you which in one form or another looks like, 'no I don't' or 'no they don't' followed by contradicting yourself. "You start off your pile o'nonsense with a meaningless 'definition' of the scientific process. No I didn't. I merely reminded you that science is a process, I made no attempt to define the process, nor is that needed since I figured that to be commonly understood between us. This is yet another error on your part. See:(probably not)>>>>>"No problem. Science is a process, the best there is for analysing the material temporal aspects of the universe. A process it is, and we can settle on that. Then I continued to clarify what science gives us: "the conclusions made during the scientific process, 'established facts' ... well ok, established to the extent they are likely to change as new information or circumstance comes available, which really becomes a disclaimer on the 'factoid' claim ... facts until or unless we find out they are not." You responded by saying pretty much the same thing in your own words but used a contradictory tone. With regards to your current question which you answered for yourself but wrongly... >>>"Non Sequitor" What non sequitur? I have already clarified what comment was a Non Sequitor ... I thought that would make it obvious but I don't mind offering an explanation. Non Sequitor >>>"Sigh. Look, you want to argue epistemology, go ahead and knock yourself out. I don't get into tail chasing. And that is what all of those arguments about fake cows and barns eventually boils down to." First, epistemology is the study of knowledge and what qualifies something as knowledge. My issue here was with labling something as settled or as fact. An epistemological perspective is a perfectly valid application to this issue, what is settled or not (a fact). You imply there is some flaw in using that perspective but you are simply wrong about that. Then, in addition to your inappropriate condescention ('sigh') and put downs, you make a crack about boiling things down to 'false cows and barns' which is totally out of context with this discussion, so a <Non Sequitor>. Now you are adding to your past mistakes with this comment: "You start off your pile o'nonsense with a meaningless 'definition' of the scientific process. Lots of big, impressive words that really didn't say anything. You then segue into a pile of crap about 'facts' that is total nonsense and has nothing to do with science or the process." 1. You are wrong about the definition allegation. 2. I made a point about the use of the word 'fact.' The point being that calling something a fact that can not really be established as true in the absolute sense is a misnomer. I said, "Facts are absolutes and do not change, which only exist in the ideological sense and are not materialistically testable." The dictionary says, 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: This looks like a match to me, you calling it nonsense is your own discombobulation. The two statements, (the dictionary definition, and mine) are not hard to interpret or relate and do make sense. Some people don't believe in absolutes but that is beside the point. 3: The only issue I have been discussing with you is the use of the term 'settled fact', whether calling something in particular a 'settled fact' may be a true statement or not, and where that can be contradicted. We had a particular thing here and you claimed on the one hand calling it not settled was not true and then contradicted yourself by saying we may find out that the thing is not settled at some point, which is an affirmation that the discussion on it is not closed, or settled. "...and you still haven't managed to address the issue." Another mistake (false statement on your part), as I've addressed the issue at length. 4: It appeared to me that you wanted no more of this discussion as you characterised it as 'tail chasing.' "I don't get into tail chasing." A mischaracterisation, but your closure just the same. "What towel has been thrown in? All you have done is thrown together some loosely connected sentences that you probably don't understand. And you still haven't addressed that I have pointed out that you are FOS with your claims about 'facts'. 5. Another odd behavior typical of you is telling other people they don't understand what they have said and calling their statements nonsense... which, in fact, only demonstrates that you can't make sense of such a statement. IOW, you don't understand but project that onto some other person, me in this case.