W dniu wtorek, 8 grudnia 2015 22:01:38 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:51:29 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:e40dd7b1-2069-4600...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:57:28 AM UTC-8,
mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu wtorek, 8 grudnia 2015 14:35:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > > napisał:
> > >
> > > > I think they're probably in school getting the REAL skinny on physics
> > > > and
> > > > other more important subjects.
> > >
> > > See, poor idiot, "important" term is created and
> > > maintained by common sense,
> >
> > |In philosophy, yes. In science, no.
> >
> > Science can't deny. Science didn't defined this
> > term. Science doesn't know, what is important
> > and what is not. Common sense has a monopoly
> > here.
>
> Not in science. Once you introduce "common sense", science
> gets too close to mediaeval scholastics to be of enough use.
Too bad then that "important" term is an important one,
and science doesn't know, what it means. And even worse
that it's not the only one.
> (*) viz. "all physicists are idiots", "relativistic morons"
In Polish "lack of common sense" and "idiocy" or "moronism"
can be treated as three names of the same thing. And your
moronic, lacking of common sense guru was so proud about the
first... Samely, as your moronic, lacking of common sense
fellow Gary. Why aren't you proud about being a bunch
of idiots? It means the same.
It's common sense deciding, who is an idiot; you're
ignoring it - take the consequences.
> > Samely, it has a monopoly on "right" and "wrong".
> > "wise" and "stupid". And many others.
>
> Yes, but this is an entirely different concept of "common sense".
Different from what?
> You use this term so loosely that it becomes entirely inapplicable
> to science and its methods of inquiry.
Too bad then that "important" term is an important one,
and science doesn't know, what it means. And even worse
that it's not the only one.
> > Do you know Tarski?
>
> Personally, no, missed him by few months at Berkeley. But he has a room
> named after him at the Math. Dept. there.
>
> > Science can't even manage "true" and "false".
>
> That's a different issue
Different from what?
Science IS UNABLE to manage "true" and "false".
And, comparing to "important" or "right" -
"true" is rather simple, don't you think?
> > Your insane crusade never had a chance.
>
> I'm not on any crusade, I just state the obvious.
All crusaders ever just stated the obvious.
Too bad "obvious" is - again - a common sense
term.
> > > and as you rejected
> > > common sense, your opinion about "what is important"
> > > - is clueless and worthless.
> >
> > |This is again a philosophical claim. In science it's incorrect.
> >
> > No, it isn't. And science can't tell ANYTHING in the
> > subject of importance.
> > Do you really have different opinion? OK. Present it.
> > How do science determine, what is important?
>
> You keep mixing orders of magnitude.
Did your common sense tell you I do?
> You take this mundane aspect
> of "common sense" and attempt to apply it in science where this kind of
> stretch becomes a triviality. Of course the notion of "curved empty
> spacetime" (say) "violates" my "common sense". Yawn. Next objection?
That ignoring such objections your Shit gets too close to
mediaeval scholastics to be of enough use. And we can see
it at GPS. Your moronic "standards" have to be ignored, so
they are ignored. Common sense warned your idiot guru, but
he didn't listen.
Too bad for your science.