Patrick
Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,19:14) | At Mark Frank's blog, nearly a month ago, I remarked vis Liz Liddle's dialog with Unpleasant Blowhard:
| Quote | I think Liz has taken a wrong turn in the discussion. IMO she has been far too accepting of UB’s gas-bag definitions, and would have been better served by sticking to her guns and requiring that UB supply a workable operational definition of information as he construes it, such that both can agree whether her ambitious simulation has either demonstrated it or has not.
He won’t be able to provide one, nor will any body else. That is a point worthy of demonstration. |
And later:
| Quote | | Of course, this [Blowhard's definition] bears no resemblance to an operational definition, as no operations, measurements or procedures for deciding whether/how much information is present are present in this definition. UB obviously has no idea what an operational definition is, and I don’t see any purpose served in allowing him to sustain the illusion that he and Liz have found common ground in an “operational definition” from which she can proceed. |
Although she has the patience of Job, she has finally reached the conclusion that was inevitable from the outset:
| Quote | | Upright BiPed, you no doubt know a lot about information but you do not know how to operationalise a hypothesis. |
And it was worthy of demonstration.
[ETA teeny extras] |
Upright BiPed, like several other UD denizens, still retains the ability to amaze me with his inability to understand that definitions matter:
| Quote | The Popper in me says that the descriptors are far less important that the understanding anyway.
|
"We can't define pornographyinformation, but we know when we see itover and over again!"
|
