Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously

On Aug 21, 8:42 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

  He is obviously /shielding a weakness/; it is

**Maybe lazy - or merely presenting results to research which exists
elsewhere?


Um, no.


The point being the reader/audience can determine little verity
from results alone. Philosophically what is not going on here is
'transference' in the sense of sharing the means of inquiry.


In this case, there was a decided *avoidance*
of "inquiry"; you see, there was a war going on,
between science and religion. This insistence
that X cannot be used with regard to Y is a
truce of sorts, or maybe a buffer zone having
mainly to do with the war.


**Feynman is a good example in mathematics of uncritically acceping the
collected received opinion of 50 years of authorities.


To heck with him then! Why can't he be more
like me, and carefully scrutinize the claims of
these "authorities", instead of blindly accepting
them?


More recently in physics there is the infamous
announced result of : cold fusion in a test-tube.


Already tried. The glass tube becomes
brittle, and prone to shattering easily. As
for the "fusion", it smells like sulfur and
tastes like onion.


**certainly akin to the danger of rote memorised moves alone. Without
understanding the process of developing the whole team in such-and-such a
formation, then the individual moves may be known, but not understood.


Precisely. I recently lost a game due to
making two horrific tactical blunders in a
row, yet my opponent remained convinced
that I had gone awry in the opening--
because my early moves did not precisely
match those in his books! As can easily
be seen by objective examination, his
conception was wrong; computer analysis
shows that my loss was almost entirely
due to those tactical blunders, which were
so severe that I am shown to come out a
full Queen down!


As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is
itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses
nothing whatever.


That will be one of my next projects; I am
especially interested in why, after careful
definition of science as X, certain alleged
scientists made reckless assumptions and
were given a free pass, when others would
have automatically have been termed
pseudo-scientists or even hacks.


**Now, without knowing if Hooper was right or wrong, Our Taylor then became
excited to the degree that he is prepared to call me insane for citing an
encylopedia. His own citation is of the tournament book which he hotly
obtained from UK, but which did /not/ illustrate means of placement. But
obviously, Our Taylor's strong reaction is /not/ to the encyclopedia entry,
but to the refutation of Lasker's world status as proposed by Our Taylor,
whether Lasker finished 7th or 8th. And that is the context for everything,
including inventing my opinion for me.


Whew. I have discovered that sometimes
Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious
source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed
mule. One example was where he lifted
the phrase "not in the top 50" from Mark
Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the
end of his career.


  Is it perhaps a PhD in law, "taken from" the
Sorbonne?  (They never recovered the one
Dr. Alekhine stole from them, you know.)

**No, no that sort of law. Perhaps scientific law of sorts. At one time
study of both Physics and Nature was called "Natural Philosophy". They have
been not exactly divorced, but definitely experiencing a trial-seperation
since the onset of the Industrial Age. An interesting synopsis of the
subject is the 1991 title by Rupert Sheldrake: The Rebirth of Nature; The
Greening of Science and God. As if, you know, there was one operating system
for the Cosmos, and our Universe suggested that the Nature of Man, the
Nature of Nature, and the Nature of God, also share one Operating System.
Very much of this title points to the dead-end result of received knowledge,
which is seen to be merely rule-of-thumb conveniences fitting only some
circumstances, and not addressing the whole, though presuming to do so.


There are many "courses" on this subject
from which to choose-- some fitting the
category of science and some fitting religion,
or even both.


**The rule of pedants, especially literary ones, is the story of our modern
age - if I can date that to the emergence of the printing press, and the
contrary instinct from such as Galileo's preference for observation before
thought. Indeed, this hidden animus of singular insistences was noted early,
and also its nature:

    No-one who sees the iconoclasts raging thus against wood
    and stone would doubt that there is a spirit hidden in
    them which is death-dealing, not life-giving, and which at
    the first opportunity will also kill men.

        //Martin Luther, 1525.


Not all of these "scientists" placed so
heavy a weighting on objective observation.
In fact, many sought to incorporate flawed
thinking into their "revolutionary" ideas,
not reject and reformulate from scratch to
simply match the data.


**At about the same time Henry VIII was destroying the integrated means of
knowledge in destroying the English monasteries - which certainly provided
greater emphasis to how we know things, and their meaning to us, than what
succeeded that; a simple quantification of result which is the modus of our
current age. [I hasten to stress that Our Taylor is not responsible for all
of this! Merely responsive to it, and that, alas, is 'normative'.]


So then, Mr. Kingston is not accountable
for this alleged destruction of knowledge,
perpetrated by the sinister Henry five-one-
one-one. (I once knew a fellow from the
Borg, with a somewhat similar name.)

I've read similar-sounding accounts on
the Web, but it seems to me that since
we have no way of knowing what would
have happened otherwise, the claims to
"protection of knowledge" by the church
are specious. Can it be demonstrated
for a fact that they did more protecting
and promoting overall, than they did of
the opposite? How so? Without the
oppression of certain forces, knowledge
has often sprung up from out of the blue,
and it is impossible to calculate where
or when.

I note that /even today/, there are such
oppressive forces hard at work. The Ivy-
leaguer of whom I wrote earlier, often feels
compelled to stop in mid-course to
address these issues. The war
continues... .


-- help bot




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey! How About That............
    ... All the serious science has agreed for years. ... Man is part of nature. ... and 10K sf houses to allow room for YOU to have kids? ... I agree that there are "scientists" that agree with you. ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch scam"
    ... Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol ... scientists shows that science is purely subjective. ... OTOH every mature science had a large core of concepts, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bothered by "falsification" criteria for scence
    ... > You miss the simple fact that science is simply what scientists do. ... > is just a means of learning things about nature. ... every possible non-testable explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution of man
    ... deny science to be a misrepresentation of my position. ... group of people you choose to include in your definition of scientists ... I have looked at the evidence. ...   That is a misrepresentation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question on Perspectival Pluralism and Science
    ... that humanism accepts Perspectival Pluralism. ... views about what nature is like. ... it comes to science." ... No scientists supposes that such a thing could be possible ...
    (talk.origins)