N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,19:32) | | It's always a struggle to find better ways to word things. At least I try. |
Well, yes, it's always a struggle to write decently, and you and your writing are very trying. However, that doesn't mean that writing comprehensibly is optional, nor does it mean that you are trying hard enough or doing well enough. Decent writing is a responsibility to your audience and to your own ideas, because if you show that you don't care enough to present your ideas decently, why would your audience think they are worth anything?
| Quote | | I don't have do what Guenter does to have a computer model that needs a Theory Of Operation for, therefore all are immediately overruled by standard science and engineering procedures for models of systems such as demonstrated in the ID Labs. |
You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. These are not optional if you wish to be considered to be doing science. No work is ever complete. There are various things that would be good that you can manage without if you have other good stuff - experiments would be good, but if you had a good model with lots of ground-truthing or good observational data, you could make a useful contribution despite a lack of experiments, or vice versa. However, you don't have any of the desirable characteristics of good science: no evidence to back up your assertions, no ground-truthing to indicate that your model has any bearing on reality, no logic to suggest that it is valid, and so on.
| Quote | | And I don't need an OK from this forum for me to write theory explaining how a computer modeled system works. Suggesting I need permission or acceptance from some authority is just another way for someone who sees themselves as that "some authority" to mislead themselves and others into believing that I must, when I don't. |
Again, you misunderstand what a theory is in science. If your mess is to qualify as a theory, you absolutely do need a modicum of acceptance from experts. Even if everyone in this forum thought your stuff was the most wonderful theory ever, that would not in any way be enough to raise your stuff up to the level of a theory. The experts have to be specialists in relevant fields (not Planet Source Code), and they have to be much more on top of your stuff than the handful of uninformed up-votes on Planet Source Code. This is the essence of what it takes for something to qualify as a theory: ideas must have enough evidence / have passed enough tests / have garnered enough acceptance among experts in order to qualify as a theory. A theory does not qualify as a theory just because someone proposed it. If you have as much evidence as Darwin marshalled in Origin of Species, or if your math is as unassailable as Einstein's, you MIGHT be able to get away with calling your own ideas a theory and have other people go along with you on that, but something does not become a theory just because it exists or because its originator thinks highly of it. This is why there is not yet a theory of abiogenesis, nor a grand unifying theory of physics or biology, and it is one of many reasons why your mess of verbiage is not a theory.
|
