Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong

On Dec 21, 1:16 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >

I've given you a citation to a quote from Rupert Morrish.  Are you
saying that you disagree with Rupert Morrish?  See quote below:

Rupert Morrish is not a scientist who has been involved in determining
if objects are artifacts or not! As it happens, yes, I disagree with
him. There is no "Parts A and B". We test hypotheses of how objects
are made. If we know how an object is made we can determine if it's an
artifact or not. If we can't figure out how it was made we don't know
if it's an artifact or not.

< snip >

I said that I *disagree* with him, Sean.

Yes, you did.

You need to learn to read for comprehension.

I just wanted to make your disagreement here very clear for Rupert -
He is/was under the impression that you actually recognize both
elements of what he thinks it takes to recognize an artifact.

As far as your declaration that he is not a scientist - how do you
know that? Beyond this, where is you reference that he is wrong?
Where is your reference that only one of Rupert's elements are really
needed to detect an artifact as being a true artifact?

Does anyone else, even in this forum, actually *agree* with your one-
part notion here?

< snip rest >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages