On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:48:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Moreover, Popper's work has been extended, modified in detail and even
partly refuted by at least two of his former students, Lakatos and
Feyerabend. One argument that is applied is that had the criteria
been as strict in the past based on what was known them, would
progress have been made?


Well now you have looked up Popper on a website, and found as much as
you can to refute his positions, try actually understanding what he was
getting at.


Misconception again.

I haven't taken a position on what he said at all, but have merely
highlighted that it is not universally considered by the scientific
community to be the be all and end all.

I prefer to keep an open mind rather than taking a religious view.



--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:42:20 +0000, Phil Young
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:25:55 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:


The closest to being a something -ist that I go would be individualist.
However, that has a problem too because it suggests to some a grouping
together for collective behaviour of some kind and I couldn't condone
that.

Commerce ?


Possibly. I suppose that two people can be described as collective in
the strict sense, although I tend to think of a larger group.


--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:32:12 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I also suggested that the boundaries of science *could* alter in the
future to consider concepts, theories and studies that are today not
included or are on the edge.

As the only item under discussion was that of ID your suggestion was naturally
taken to mean that the boundary change might be sufficient to include that.

I don't see why you would assume that. It is frequent in Usenet
threads for subthreads to occur that take discussion points in quite
different directions.


I
accept your apology for misleading everyone and confirmation that you never
meant any such thing.

There's no apology because I didn't mislead anybody. You may have
misled yourself by ignoring what I explicitly stated at the outset
which was that I was not taking a position on ID.

Either you missed that (which seems unlikely because it was restated
several times) or you chose to ignore it.


You are still confused by your ideas of 'boundary' of
science and I'm more inclined to believe that you are actually talking about
the boundaries of scientists rather than the boundaries of science ie changing
what scientists (or their financiers & publishers) actually study rather than
the rules that they (should) apply in their work.

I'm not confused about the boundaries of science at all and
differentiated quite clearly between these and the political and
economic restrictions on scientists.



--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:14:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I also suggested that the boundaries of science *could* alter in the
future to consider concepts, theories and studies that are today not
included or are on the edge.

As the only item under discussion was that of ID your suggestion was naturally
taken to mean that the boundary change might be sufficient to include that. I
accept your apology for misleading everyone and confirmation that you never
meant any such thing. You are still confused by your ideas of 'boundary' of
science and I'm more inclined to believe that you are actually talking about
the boundaries of scientists rather than the boundaries of science ie changing
what scientists (or their financiers & publishers) actually study rather than
the rules that they (should) apply in their work.

Andy,..here is what you were too lazy to google

The key phrase to note is this one:-

“We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful
people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true," they
shouted.

In short, it is the triumph of opinion over reality that is the issue of
this story.

At some point you either think that if enough monkeys thinks something
is true, it is, or that there is some reality beyond the chattering of
monkeys...if the former, you are of the Bandar Log, and the same fate
awaits you.


I haven't suggested that I think anything of the kind.

Your constant attempts to put words in my mouth and suggestions that I
hold this position or that should be cast into the grey-green greasy
Limpopo where they belong.

The water should be high enough right now.


--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:46:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I hope that that clarifies the situation for you.
It does. You jumped into the middle of a discussion with an idea that didn't
fit and refused to deny your apparent espousal of a grossly unreasonable idea.
Now that you have sloughed off that idea it is all far clearer.


There was never an espousal of an idea and if you had taken the
trouble to read what I wrote properly, you would have realised that I
carefully and explicitly explained that I was not taking a position on
ID and why. Moreover, I restated that repeatedly and you chose to
ignore it.

There was no sloughing off or anything approaching that.

The reality is that the extent of what I was suggesting was in context
and clearly defined.

Please don't try to pretend now that there is some change of position
on my part just because you didn't bother to read what was said or
chose to read into it what you wanted to read.




The answer to your simple question - divorced of all the context that turned
it into something else - is that you misunderstand science. There is no need,
no likelihood, of the boundaries of *what science is capable of doing* being
altered.

That's something else.


Science is entirely capable of studying all that you suggest (and
more) and do it scientifically - and I mentioned some such ideas myself in
this thread (placebo/healer studies). All that is needed is to give scientists
the funding to make such studies.

... and for them to be sufficiently within the realms of acceptability
that people are willing to risk reputation to consider them.



All the rest that you mention are part of
science. String theory is central in science - not as an accepted yet as a
true idea of course but one that has much yet to be tested - and a Theory of
Everything (so called) is an idea to stimulate research and (at the moment)
nothing like any accepted scientific Theories despite its name.

This appears to be the only one currently considered to be mainstream.

--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:56:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tournifreak wrote:
al wrote:
Please ... not least because it won't ever end if everyone doesn't just
stand back a take a deep breath. There are some things that nobody will
ever agree on unilaterally!

I'm sure that's true but I for one find it enjoyable to discover where
other people are coming from. I think the tone has been (generally)
fairly calm and reasonable. As for ending the thread, I'd be OK with
that - it just seems quite an interesting one that's all.


Its not a question of agreeing or disagreeing.

Its turned into an attempt to discover why Andy Pandy has attempted to
hijack the thread with the sole purpose it seems of winning an argument,
on the basis of flawed logic, and teenage tactics of denial and
projection of his own confusion onto others.

I don't mind discussion, but blatant trolling needs to be ridiculed if
it is not to muddy the waters.

The only trolling came from your inability or unwillingness to read
what was said at the outset.

There were several restatements of what I originally said and the
intent and context. These were also ignored, material added in an
attempt to discredit a position that I never held in the first place
followed by ad hominem attacks.

I am certainly not going to sit back and accept misrepresentations
like this.

Had you taken the trouble to discuss what I said and the context in
which it was intended in the first place, then this could have been
entirely avoided.



--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:26:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
String theory is central in science - not accepted yet as a true idea of
course but one that has much yet to be tested - and a Theory of Everything
(so called) is an idea to stimulate research and (at the moment) nothing
like any accepted scientific Theories despite its name.

This appears to be the only one currently considered to be mainstream.

You haven't made it clear what 'this' refers to. String Theory/ToE?

String theory as a candidate for TOE itself or as a major step.

--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:48:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Moreover, Popper's work has been extended, modified in detail and even
partly refuted by at least two of his former students, Lakatos and
Feyerabend. One argument that is applied is that had the criteria
been as strict in the past based on what was known them, would
progress have been made?

Well now you have looked up Popper on a website, and found as much as
you can to refute his positions, try actually understanding what he was
getting at.


Misconception again.

I haven't taken a position on what he said at all,

I never said you had

Straw man at round one?

Blimey.

but have merely
highlighted that it is not universally considered by the scientific
community to be the be all and end all.

Nothing is considered the be all and end all.


I prefer to keep an open mind rather than taking a religious view.



Bandar log.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:26:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
String theory is central in science - not accepted yet as a true idea
of course but one that has much yet to be tested - and a Theory of
Everything (so called) is an idea to stimulate research and (at the
moment) nothing like any accepted scientific Theories despite its name.

This appears to be the only one currently considered to be mainstream.

You haven't made it clear what 'this' refers to. String Theory/ToE?

String theory as a candidate for TOE itself or as a major step.

Even if my maths was up to it the limitations of usenet mean that the
equations could not be displayed. I reckon we call this one 'Off Topic'. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:56:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tournifreak wrote:
al wrote:
Please ... not least because it won't ever end if everyone doesn't just
stand back a take a deep breath. There are some things that nobody will
ever agree on unilaterally!
I'm sure that's true but I for one find it enjoyable to discover where
other people are coming from. I think the tone has been (generally)
fairly calm and reasonable. As for ending the thread, I'd be OK with
that - it just seems quite an interesting one that's all.

Its not a question of agreeing or disagreeing.

Its turned into an attempt to discover why Andy Pandy has attempted to
hijack the thread with the sole purpose it seems of winning an argument,
on the basis of flawed logic, and teenage tactics of denial and
projection of his own confusion onto others.

I don't mind discussion, but blatant trolling needs to be ridiculed if
it is not to muddy the waters.

The only trolling came from your inability or unwillingness to read
what was said at the outset.

Mirror

There were several restatements of what I originally said and the
intent and context. These were also ignored, material added in an
attempt to discredit a position that I never held in the first place
followed by ad hominem attacks.

Straw man and a mirror.
I am certainly not going to sit back and accept misrepresentations
like this.

Toys and prams

Had you taken the trouble to discuss what I said and the context in
which it was intended in the first place, then this could have been
entirely avoided.

Injured innocence.

Come on Andy.No one is fooled

You are a dick and I claim my £5.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:04:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:48:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Moreover, Popper's work has been extended, modified in detail and even
partly refuted by at least two of his former students, Lakatos and
Feyerabend. One argument that is applied is that had the criteria
been as strict in the past based on what was known them, would
progress have been made?

Well now you have looked up Popper on a website, and found as much as
you can to refute his positions, try actually understanding what he was
getting at.


Misconception again.

I haven't taken a position on what he said at all,

I never said you had


I'm glad that we're clear on that point. I don't want another
situation where material or a position is incorrectly attributed to
me.




but have merely
highlighted that it is not universally considered by the scientific
community to be the be all and end all.

Nothing is considered the be all and end all.

I'm glad that we're clear on that as well.





I prefer to keep an open mind rather than taking a religious view.



Bandar log.


No it isn't.



--

..andy

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:05:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:26:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
String theory is central in science - not accepted yet as a true idea
of course but one that has much yet to be tested - and a Theory of
Everything (so called) is an idea to stimulate research and (at the
moment) nothing like any accepted scientific Theories despite its name.

This appears to be the only one currently considered to be mainstream.

You haven't made it clear what 'this' refers to. String Theory/ToE?

String theory as a candidate for TOE itself or as a major step.

Even if my maths was up to it the limitations of usenet mean that the
equations could not be displayed. I reckon we call this one 'Off Topic'. ;-)

Fine. It wasn't particularly, of itself, something that I wanted to
explore in any detail, other than to make the point that various
concepts and theories have been put forward over time.





--

..andy

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:07:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:56:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tournifreak wrote:
al wrote:
Please ... not least because it won't ever end if everyone doesn't just
stand back a take a deep breath. There are some things that nobody will
ever agree on unilaterally!
I'm sure that's true but I for one find it enjoyable to discover where
other people are coming from. I think the tone has been (generally)
fairly calm and reasonable. As for ending the thread, I'd be OK with
that - it just seems quite an interesting one that's all.

Its not a question of agreeing or disagreeing.

Its turned into an attempt to discover why Andy Pandy has attempted to
hijack the thread with the sole purpose it seems of winning an argument,
on the basis of flawed logic, and teenage tactics of denial and
projection of his own confusion onto others.

I don't mind discussion, but blatant trolling needs to be ridiculed if
it is not to muddy the waters.

The only trolling came from your inability or unwillingness to read
what was said at the outset.

Mirror

Yes, and a pretty accurate one.



There were several restatements of what I originally said and the
intent and context. These were also ignored, material added in an
attempt to discredit a position that I never held in the first place
followed by ad hominem attacks.

Straw man and a mirror.
I am certainly not going to sit back and accept misrepresentations
like this.

Toys and prams

Hardly.



Had you taken the trouble to discuss what I said and the context in
which it was intended in the first place, then this could have been
entirely avoided.

Injured innocence.

Nope. Simply setting the position straight.



Come on Andy.No one is fooled

You are a dick and I claim my £5.

Another ad hominem attack.


--

..andy

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate over a week ago?

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:53:53 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:42:20 +0000, Phil Young
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:25:55 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:


The closest to being a something -ist that I go would be individualist.
However, that has a problem too because it suggests to some a grouping
together for collective behaviour of some kind and I couldn't condone
that.

Commerce ?


Possibly. I suppose that two people can be described as collective in the
strict sense, although I tend to think of a larger group.

I prefer not to restrict my thinking in that way.

--

Phil Young

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate over
a week ago?

No point. Andy doesn't 'condone' any collective activity.

Has it only been a week ? Seems like eons.

--

Phil Young

Phil Young wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate over
a week ago?

No point. Andy doesn't 'condone' any collective activity.

Has it only been a week ? Seems like eons.

And Andy will simply deny that he was, in fact having a debate.

As well as affirming the principle, that 'lost' has no objective
meaning, being entirely in the opinion field of those who use the term.

And might, at any arbitrary future time, become 'won' seamlessly and
without bringing civilizations crashing down around our ears.

And in fact even the terms 'lost' and 'won' imply a position, which he
never said he had. And whereas it is logical for him to assume from the
uses of the terms 'lost' and 'won' that we were engaging in some
judgemental activity, such shameless extrapolation of anything HE says,
is entirely invalid.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate over a week ago?

The point is not about the content of the discussion but of having
something that was said taken out of the context in which it was
originally said and used to imply a position that was never held and
was specifically stated not to be part of the original point.

Put more simply, I won't accept words being put in my mouth.




--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate
over a week ago?

The point is not about the content of the discussion but of having
something that was said taken out of the context in which it was
originally said and used to imply a position that was never held and
was specifically stated not to be part of the original point.

But according to you there was no content. I have never heard anyone
argue from a point of no substance.

al wrote:

It's gone on longer than IMM/Drivel's idiotic rants about insulation at this stage ...!

Time to inject some Caustic into it, is it?

Would a saturated solution of rockwool in caustic soda improve my
cordless drill's performance if I were to replace the electrolyte in
the batteries wth it?

Would it stop it evolving? Should I be careful to use dilute? What sort
of paint could I use to disguise the changes? And how much should I
charge it for?

Weatherlawyer wrote:
al wrote:

It's gone on longer than IMM/Drivel's idiotic rants about insulation at this stage ...!

Time to inject some Caustic into it, is it?

Would a saturated solution of rockwool in caustic soda improve my
cordless drill's performance if I were to replace the electrolyte in
the batteries wth it?

Would it stop it evolving? Should I be careful to use dilute? What sort
of paint could I use to disguise the changes? And how much should I
charge it for?

Yes. No. Yes. Gloss white. 16 hours.

Bump.

Velcro protected bumps of course. Wouldn't want any accidents forming
eyes.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:48:17 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate
over a week ago?

The point is not about the content of the discussion but of having
something that was said taken out of the context in which it was
originally said and used to imply a position that was never held and
was specifically stated not to be part of the original point.

But according to you there was no content. I have never heard anyone
argue from a point of no substance.

That isn't what I said either. There certainly was very specific
content. It simply wasn't what others chose to take it to be.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:48:17 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate
over a week ago?

The point is not about the content of the discussion but of having
something that was said taken out of the context in which it was
originally said and used to imply a position that was never held and
was specifically stated not to be part of the original point.

But according to you there was no content. I have never heard anyone
argue from a point of no substance.

That isn't what I said either. There certainly was very specific
content. It simply wasn't what others chose to take it to be.

Exactly.. you said you never said anything

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:16:13 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:48:17 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate
over a week ago?

The point is not about the content of the discussion but of having
something that was said taken out of the context in which it was
originally said and used to imply a position that was never held and
was specifically stated not to be part of the original point.

But according to you there was no content. I have never heard anyone
argue from a point of no substance.

That isn't what I said either. There certainly was very specific
content. It simply wasn't what others chose to take it to be.

Exactly.. you said you never said anything

Nooooo..... I said that I didn't say what people said that I said or
what they thought and inferred from what I said.

--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:16:13 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:48:17 GMT, "Ophelia"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:00:41 GMT, Bob Martin

wrote:

in 497855 20060208 003025 Andy Hall wrote:

Is it time for a poll on whether or not Andy Hall lost this debate
over a week ago?

The point is not about the content of the discussion but of having
something that was said taken out of the context in which it was
originally said and used to imply a position that was never held
and
was specifically stated not to be part of the original point.

But according to you there was no content. I have never heard
anyone
argue from a point of no substance.

That isn't what I said either. There certainly was very specific
content. It simply wasn't what others chose to take it to be.

Exactly.. you said you never said anything

Nooooo..... I said that I didn't say what people said that I said or
what they thought and inferred from what I said.

If you say so

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:32:25 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


Exactly.. you said you never said anything

Nooooo..... I said that I didn't say what people said that I said or
what they thought and inferred from what I said.

If you say so

Well, something like that, anyway.


--

..andy