NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2015,22:19) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 30 2015,07:49) | | Quote (NoName @ Jan. 30 2015,14:38) | Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope? |
That's easy Gary thinks his waffle explains everything which in itself precludes said waffle from being a theory.
Gary if you want to find out what makes a scientific theory you need to check out the atheists. Why? Because god er... Sorry teh intelligent designer is not on the criteria for a scientific theory.
http://atheism.about.com/od....o....ory.htm |
Then you need to write a science paper on why it is impossible for a "theorist" to exist, and demand that all theories that were written in the past 150 years are immediately thrown out of science. |
You do realize, don't you, that it is your "theory" that forbids the existence of such a being as a "theorist"?
Neither the conception nor working out of a 'theory' requires a control system with motor control.
Neither requires that smuggled-in stolen concept 'guess'. There may be guesswork in pre-theoretical work, but there are many more ways new information is generated for a theory, as for a melody or harmonization, than mere 'guessing'.
Your work has no place for musical composition, comprehension, nor recognition. Your work has no place for the generation of theories. You work cannot explain how facts are combined into hypotheses or explanations, other than by the puerile, facile, and ultimately circular recourse to 'guessing'.
Of course if we are wrong in these assertions, surely you can show how and why we are incorrect, and provide an explanation based solely on the content of your "theory" as to how 'theorists' exist, how they form 'theories', how music can be composed, how melodies can be recognized, how harmonization is determined by a composer, and, given all that, how on earth any intelligent being can persist in claiming that all intelligence involves motor control.
But as I have been pointing out for rather more than 200 pages now, on the grounds of your "theory" you are either not an intelligent being or you are getting exactly the results you desire from your "theory", including all the reactions and response your "theory" brings forth.
One could say that your "theory" is the ipecac of science -- it causes itself to be vomited up as unacceptable to the system, on its own merits and due to its intrinsic nature.
|
