N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (NoName @ Mar. 22 2014,07:23) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,01:41) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 21 2014,23:15) | | A model can conceivably be useful without showing any relationship to natural systems, so I agree with you, somewhat, on that point. However, it won't be very useful in explaining natural systems without a significant attempt to demonstrate its relevance and accuracy, which you have yet to supply. Supplying evidence of this when unlikely claims are being made on the model's behalf is standard operating procedure, and asking for evidence when that is not provided is also perfectly reasonable. |
I needed to make it clear that I do NOT owe anybody EVIDENCE for what is said in its itsonline description or my terminology in this thread in regards to intelligence systems where properly designed might in the future become conscious via grid field bioelectrical activity or something like that.
... |
Of course you do, you silly pathetic git.
If you aren't responsible for supplying the evidence, who is?
If evidence is irrelevant, then you're not doing science.
If evidence is relevant, where and what do you have?
If you have nothing, which is, of course, the reason you so petulantly insist it's not your responsibility to supply it, then you've got nothing. As we've been pointing out for lo these 325+ pages now.
Claims require evidence or they are merely hot air. Or in your case, wasted electrons.
Likewise for terminology. If you use standard terms with nonstandard meanings, you are being fraudulent. If you are using nonstandard terms, you are being intentionally confusing. Both of these are contrary to the purpose of communication.
We've already seen that your use of terms such as 'learning' are non-standard and fly in the face of the fields you claim to be working in. We've already seen that your usual style of communication is incoherent and generally both confused and confusing. Yet you complain about being misunderstood. Who's fault is that, Gary?
Without evidence, you've got nothing.
You've got no evidence.
Therefore, you've got nothing.
Logic. Learn some. |
In support of Gary's view of science, when Pons and Fleischman announced the concept of cold fusion in a cup, it became the responsibility of the rest of science to provide the evidence proving them correct, which is how come we are driving fusion-powered cars today.
And the reason that scientists all accept evolution is that when Darwin circulated a letter saying, "you know what, organisms evolve! As proof, see the attached extremely detailed description of a barnacle," everybody else said "Wow, that's brilliant, and we don't have anything better, so clearly evolution wins by default".
Or possibly not.
|
