Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:03)|
|If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.|
Since you directed your post to me Gary, I'm going to try and parse it and see if I can respond.
|If you only want to engage what I said [and] are worn out [by] philosophical arguments[,] |instead of [while engaging] science [scientific arguments,] then it's best that you do not [n]ever expect that from me [to address only science] anyway.
Hmm...assuming I got the gist of what you were going for, rewritten this would be:
|If you are only interested in engaging me if I focus on scientific arguments because you do not understand my philosophical arguments, you likely won't enjoy discussing what I say because I won't focus only on science.|
Ehh...that might be close. Who knows?
See Gary, that's the whole point. My complaint has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with syntax. I don't know what you are actually trying to communicate. As I stated, I can get the gist, but getting the gist does not actually allow for direct, linear communication. I can't get into the details of what you are trying to convey so I can't appreciate your concepts on any deeper levels.
So Gary, I'm happy that you think you presenting some philosophical conceptual framework or whatever, but since I can't quite parse the nitty-gritty of said philosophical argument, let alone how it applies in any way to science, I can't exactly ask any questions about your concept or analyze it, let alone use it.
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis