03-23-2004, 10:27 PM
Hi,
It's actually quite clear to me. You believe in one type of universe, Lewis Carrol and I believe in a very different one. I see yours as trying to put everything into a neat and tidy box. I don't think you understand mine, and everytime we have these discussions you resort to your usual method of shutting down discussion with a combination of ad hominems, and bah humbugism. It's hard to have any serious discussion or make any progress when there is no respectful consideration given to the salient points and even if not fully proven, no one (hardly) ever concedes any point has been made. If I backed down every time someone took a cheap shot, attacked the credibility of the sources, or hurled some falacious unsubstantiated garbage back at me, then it would be no discussion. Just a bunch of cowed observers watching the board regulars pontificating and shooting down any inferior intellect that dares to question their genius.
Yeah. But since I wasn't discussing world views, I don't see what this has to do with anything. You used math as an example and you got the concepts wrong.
I will try to be very, very, clear. For the third time, all I'm saying is; Let's say we have an infinite number of propositions, within our defined system. If we examine the first thousand propositions, and find all indicate a particular trend, it is still conceivable that one of the unexamined (or underexamined) propositions might invalidate your entire understanding of the universe. I believe there is room for some doubt.
I have no problem with this. But this has nothing to do with what you tried to say using math. Math does not work this way. Perhaps *you* thought it did, but if so, it just goes to prove my point: you are ignorant of math and should not try using it in your arguments.
I'm willing to discuss things, to keep an open mind, to be friendly and respectful of people. I try to be optimistic, to see the positive, to find the value in all people. My ego is not wrapped up in being the genius of everything at the Lurker Lounge.
As your last posts shows, clearly what you are not willing to do is shut up when the discussion goes beyond your understanding in a field. I did not question your world view, I did not contradict your opinions. I simple pointed out that when you tried to use math to make your points, your math was wrong. I could care less about your points.
Oh, and get a spell checker -- amongst other things I find objectionable about you is the number of times I have to tell my checker to ignore the mistakes in what I quote from you.
--Pete
It's actually quite clear to me. You believe in one type of universe, Lewis Carrol and I believe in a very different one. I see yours as trying to put everything into a neat and tidy box. I don't think you understand mine, and everytime we have these discussions you resort to your usual method of shutting down discussion with a combination of ad hominems, and bah humbugism. It's hard to have any serious discussion or make any progress when there is no respectful consideration given to the salient points and even if not fully proven, no one (hardly) ever concedes any point has been made. If I backed down every time someone took a cheap shot, attacked the credibility of the sources, or hurled some falacious unsubstantiated garbage back at me, then it would be no discussion. Just a bunch of cowed observers watching the board regulars pontificating and shooting down any inferior intellect that dares to question their genius.
Yeah. But since I wasn't discussing world views, I don't see what this has to do with anything. You used math as an example and you got the concepts wrong.
I will try to be very, very, clear. For the third time, all I'm saying is; Let's say we have an infinite number of propositions, within our defined system. If we examine the first thousand propositions, and find all indicate a particular trend, it is still conceivable that one of the unexamined (or underexamined) propositions might invalidate your entire understanding of the universe. I believe there is room for some doubt.
I have no problem with this. But this has nothing to do with what you tried to say using math. Math does not work this way. Perhaps *you* thought it did, but if so, it just goes to prove my point: you are ignorant of math and should not try using it in your arguments.
I'm willing to discuss things, to keep an open mind, to be friendly and respectful of people. I try to be optimistic, to see the positive, to find the value in all people. My ego is not wrapped up in being the genius of everything at the Lurker Lounge.
As your last posts shows, clearly what you are not willing to do is shut up when the discussion goes beyond your understanding in a field. I did not question your world view, I did not contradict your opinions. I simple pointed out that when you tried to use math to make your points, your math was wrong. I could care less about your points.
Oh, and get a spell checker -- amongst other things I find objectionable about you is the number of times I have to tell my checker to ignore the mistakes in what I quote from you.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?