Re: Definition Challenge


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151867531.952675.169270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151213928.555325.197290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-06-20, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-06-17, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-06-04, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get
bogged down
on certain words.

Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on
creating
your
own definitions for words which already have well established
meanings,
particularly in the field of science.

What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for
each.

Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean
by
these terms, and why these particular definitions have been
adopted.

It strongly appears that they use them in an *informal* sense.

Certainly sometimes they do use them in an informal sense.
That doesn't preclude their being a more rigorous, formal sense for
the
terms. Unfortunately, one has to use context to determine which is
which, a talent which, while not difficult, seems to elude people
who
post statements like "we need a good definition for 'science'".

I am sorry, but the implication that science is a feeling and only
the
feelings of "qualified" people are allowed to count is Dark Age
authoritarian thinking.

No, the implication (and not a subtle one) is that you are simply
stupid.

Well, maybe I am right and you are the stupid. My profession requires
me to know the difference between vague and clear. Perhaps you don't
because your profession pays you regardless of whether you are vague or
clear.


Words tend to have fairly well defined meanings, meanings which are
nearly
always dependent on context. That you refuse to understand this basic
fact is just a reflection of your own anti-intellectualism.

Even with context they are often vague.

*************************************************
* Good metrics use numbers, not words. *
*************************************************
<snip>


Ok. Don't be shy. I read math. Put your speculation into numbers. Be
specific!

Thank you!


Show me SETI's, and I shall clone their technique.


"There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength being
emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".



If SETI ain't need one to be a "scientific hypothesis", then why should
DNA-ID. You cannot have it both ways.


Your turn.


--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html






--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/

-T-



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition Challenge
    ... Zachriel wrote: ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... me to know the difference between vague and clear. ... always dependent on context. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Definition Challenge
    ... Zachriel wrote: ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... one has to use context to determine which is ... me to know the difference between vague and clear. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Definition Challenge
    ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... one has to use context to determine which is ... me to know the difference between vague and clear. ... Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Definition Challenge
    ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... one has to use context to determine which is ... me to know the difference between vague and clear. ... Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter. ...
    (talk.origins)