N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
[quote=GaryGaulin,Feb. 08 2015,21:58][/quote]
Gary, once again you have posted a bunch of words that leave the reader unable to decipher what you are trying to say.
| Quote | Please excuse my having to make sure to fully explain that this is how "theory writing" goes in science/engineering. It's something science administrators who are used to speaking from authority against need to know the consequences of. Otherwise they will get blindsided by something that's best to chuckle at when someone reports a science teacher who thinks a theory of ID by some Gary guy is "science". Getting into this amount of sordid detail shows how some become perceived by following standard procedure, which in turn makes it easier to not worry over something I printed needing to be looked into. Some will need to explain to others why it's not worth calling in the lawyers and alerting the press. The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them.
I have to admit that my rant was maybe a bit dramatic. But railing through where that goes by railing against it makes our journey through science together a fun adventure for all. I also get to let out all my anger and frustration against that being a part of science politics that happens when what to do (and why) is unclear to officials.
In my case it's best to feel free to scream at what's in the way. I even feel better now, in a way some must pay big money for from a professional therapist to help them stay sane, in a place like this (forum). All who would otherwise try to stop something that science destines them to get squished by know how to safely stay out of its way, be amused. |
You presumably wanted to make a point with all that, but it is hard to decipher the details through your writing. I'm not entirely sure who you think is chuckling at whom, but regardless no one so far has mistaken your stuff for science. Also, "dramatic" is not quite the same as "unhinged".
| Quote | | Scientific theory is supposed to help better define words and concepts related to them, not the other way around. Your surprise over word choices is expected. |
New theories should indeed provide better explanations for concepts and/or patterns, but I think that's back to front with respect to better definitions. In the process of developing better theories, researchers often realize that old terms and definitions are inadequate, so old terminology often gets a make-over or gets replaced. However, when a theory is being developed, it is more usual that discovering problems with old terms and definitions and improving nomenclature and redefinitions pave the way for improving the theory rather than the other way around. Regardless, don't flatter yourself: the first step in doing science is making clear that the fundamental definitions are good, but you haven't done that. Researchers without good definitions are basically stuck in the mode of "garbage in, garbage out".
Shorter version: irony abounds in the way your not-a-theory fails by your own definition, even though your definition is wrong.
|
