Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:29:37 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D786771.C56D5EAB@mindspring.com> References: <200209060434.g864YM199240@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). > >> > >> That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. > > > > Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little > > further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely > > not edge cases, according to the original definition. > > This relies on having a reliable litmus test for topicality. You > claim you can do this perfectly, I claim you can't. No, you claim that I can, but that if I do, it "stifles communication into stagnicity" (never been to Stagni City; I hear they have great seafood, up near Seattle... ;^)). In the limit, your argument boils down to a claim that lack of atopicality :== stagnation. > >> > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > >> > system. > >> > >> What was nature designed for? > > > > It wasn't designed, as far as we know. > > But it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? That it exists without apparent design? Or what? Mostly, I don't account for it, given that I'm not the designer, and so I'm not accountable for it. > >> > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your > >> > friend Tim, and people like them > >> > >> Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. > > > > No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. > > Nope, I am suggesting that one can render them irrelevant with a flick > of one's finger onto the "next message" key. So why didn't this work with you and Tim, if you're convinced of its value as a success strategy? > > I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls > > change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite > > the archives, if your memory has failed you. > > Go for it. Do you honestly want a cite, or are you claiming irrelevance? > >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > >> > the correct one. > >> > >> That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. > > > > It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall > > standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. > > This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is > arbitrary. It is fixed; therefore it is *not* arbitrary. > >> But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? > > > > Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they > > are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. > > What if the derivation is unsound, but you do not detect this at first > glance? Then someone will point out *why* its unsound, and I will no longer accept the model as "potentially correct", but instead call it "known incorrect, but useful until another model is proposed which better fits the evidence". > >> I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the > >> dismissal. > > > > Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). > > You seem to be good at it, why don't you start? ;) Personally, I have no interest in resolving the contradictions which enable me to dismiss your philosophy as "not self-consistant", since I don't see how doing so would benefit me or the group. As external observers, we can't fix your world view without your cooperation. > >> > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms > >> > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. > >> > >> When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification > >> enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always > >> happen in practice. > > > > It does in *professional* practice. 8-). > > So money dictates your reality? Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able to act in a professional manner? > > Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition > > by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). > > Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very > many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work > to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is > really thinking. That's a problem for the people with the minority view, isn't it? Makes it really hard to proselytize... > > That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. > > 8-). > > Contrary to general intuation, waving a gun isn't going to get me to > comply with your demands. ;) It will, if my demands are a logical XOR of two possible outcomes, one of which is achievable by force. 8-). > > Exclusion sets work. All of science is based on the falsification > > of theories, based on empirical observations. > > Honestly, there are so many assumptions you have I don't know where to > begin to explain that I dropped those and choose not to think using > them as a computational basis. Guess that makes your job just that much harder... > Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to > comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. > All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) You forgot your demand to be permitted access to the forum in order to be able to comment... > >> That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to > >> do anything. > > > > By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. > > If people want to refuse this, there's nothing you nor I can do to > force them. Toleration is based on the knowledge that you can handle > whatever comes to you, and let others deal with what comes to them. > If they ask for help, show them the next message key. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. > > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. > > Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. No. Merely use techniques which I respect. > > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which > > fits all the facts. > > These are local maxima. Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? The answer to that is that any two explanations, if they differ, will differ in consequence. If they don't, then you've proven them equivalent, and the simplest one is still the best. If they differ in consequence, then you can mak a parediction based on the difference in consequence, and design an experiment to refute one or the other of the theories with its result. > >> > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. > >> > >> No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. > > > > It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else > > wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. > > I don't life or death care if they do, but I would prefer to see them > not do it. You've communicated your preference. What now? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D786771.C56D5EAB>