NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 09 2015,22:44) | | In my day to day job grammar perfection is supposed to be the job of those who planned to pay off their English language major college loans by getting a job at one of the editing companies that charge academics a few thousand dollars per paper, or other paying job that actually contributes to science progress. |
Really? I doubt that; in fact you are entirely mistaken. In your day job, grammar perfection is irrelevant. Printers get paid by bulk, by volume. The grammar in James Joyce's Ulysses is tortured compared to other works of comparable length. All the printer is concerned with is transferal of the original to multiple copies for sale by others. The transferal, the printing, is all that matters, and grammar plays no direct role.
In every communicating being's life, grammar is the structural form of the most properly formed speech. The less grammatical an utterance, the less properly formed it is. In general, the less properly formed it is, the less communicative it is, but even the grammarians concede that this is not always the case. The greater study of language as a whole, the 'theory of language' explains why.
None of it is directly relevant to the scientific process except insofar as better communication improves the sharing of scientific information, poorer communication debilitates such sharing.
Given that you clearly have no scientific information to share, your grammar is all but irrelevant. The relevance is merely the tragic fact that your confused writing style makes it both obvious and harder to see just how bad your ideas are.
| Quote | ...
In reality theory is simply what is found in electronic device data sheets and classroom science textbooks. That's why I ended up with that, not a book full of rhetorical wit in response to epic troll filled word-war internet forum battles I fought. |
This is wrong on an epic scale even you rarely reach.
Electronic device data sheets are not science. They are a hybrid between technology and cookbooks. To assert that an electronic device data sheet is science could not be more incorrect. You might as well say electronic data sheets are nutritious vegetables, or well executed ballet performances.
Electromagnetic theory is the theory that results in the technology that results in the manufacture of devices that are supported by data sheets so technologists have directed information regarding some of the proper uses of the devices. There is nothing theoretical about that. Nor is there anything directly 'scientific' about it. I know; I've worked with electronic data sheets in the process of building electronic musical instruments and other electronic devices, from low-level components up to ICs.
Science is, above all else, a process.
No electronic device data sheet, no classroom science textbook, is a process.
Secondly, this attempted redefinition fails as it does not support your purpose. You appear to be attempting to claim that your "theory" is the 'electronic device data sheet' for your software, which is ludicrous given the almost complete disconnect between the two. It would fail even if it were true precisely because of this disconnect.
Your software does not operate according to your 'theory' nor does it model your 'theory'. Nor does your 'theory' explain or describe how to use, nor build, your software.
Worse still, the actual theories of physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology and cognitive science that explain, or will explain, what intelligence, for a given and adequately specific operational definition of 'intelligence', is and how it works are nowhere near the point of being reduced to a technology that can be manufactured and then require description in the form of anything like an 'electronic device data sheet'. Not least due to the fluid, imprecise, and entirely undefined term 'intelligence' being bandied about.
But again, what science is, above all else, is a process. That you think science is, or can be expressed in, anything as simple and descriptive (as opposed to explanatory) as an 'electronic data sheet' is further warrant to consider you both ignorant and insane.
The level of error here is at least up to the level of asserting that a cookbook is the science of nutrition.
| Quote | ...
This theory writing project had to include discovery of what scientific "theory" actually is, where all that does not really belong in one is not included. |
What a scientific theory actually is, in any of the senses of that phrase, is not something you needed to "discover", before embarking on your mad quest. It's there to be learned. And quite clearly you have not ever learned it. Science is not just a process, it is a known process. A scientific theory is not just an artifact of the process, it is an artifact with known, specific and specifiable formal content and structure.
What "matters to", what is essential to, a real scientific theory are all the things missing from your tiresome and tiresomely reposted diagram and "theory". You lack operational definitions -- which are required, most especially when words are used outside their normal meaning or in novel ways. You lack evidence -- you have no facts, you have no identified specific phenomena your "theory" is attempting to address. You lack hypotheses -- you have no logical structure connecting your facts or phenomena under investigation to known facts or phenomena, you build no explanatory connections or bridges, and you fail to provide testable mechanisms as potential explanations of the phenomena or facts under investigation. That is to say, you lack proposed explanations that could be investigated, falsified, elaborated on, or used to generate additional insights, tests, operational definitions or other artifacts of the scientific process. Finally, you have no over-arching structure that connects hypotheses into a coherent explanatory structure that unifies the consistent and coherent set of well-supported hypotheses that are based on identifiable and specific and specified facts and/or phenomena.
| Quote | | We otherwise get stuck battling almost endless opinion related issues that in the end do not even matter to a real scientific theory. |
The primary reason for this, even ahead of the simple fact that you don't have a theory in any scientific sense of the term, is that you lack operational definitions, specific and specifiable facts being targeted by your so-called 'theory'.
No, your absurd premise "some features of the universe are best explained by intelligent agency" [paraphrasing slightly] is neither specific nor a specification for identifying which features are the focus of your efforts. That is fatal flaw number one in your nearly infinite set of fatal flaws.
And it is why so much of your confusion and so much of the difficulty in getting to grips with your nonsense, both by others and by yourself, exists.
| Quote | | This keeps the theory I'm responsible for out of issues that science administrators dread the thought of getting stuck in the middle of. |
You're not responsible for a theory. Hasn't that sunk in yet? There is not one single person on Earth, other than perhaps yourself, who thinks you have a theory. Not one.
| Quote | | ...It just so happens that the mission of this forum is to be an authoritative administrative portal for ID related issues like mine. Where you can say that I at least know how to pick them! |
Why no, you are multiply wrong here, yet again.
How on Earth do you presume to speak, let alone speak authoritatively, about 'the mission of this forum'? You have no role other than as a participant, and your irrelevance to the overall purpose of the forum resulted in your almost immediate banishment to just this one thread, this one topic, on a forum far richer and more nuanced than your dismissive yet self-congratulatory assertion asserts.
We do not say, nor need we say, that you "at least know how to pick them." Those of us familiar with your drunkard's walk across the science fora of the internet know that you have obsessively sought out science related sites, moving from one to another as your reception at each follows your standard trajectory. I dare say the only reason you're still flailing around here is that you have no where left to go. You didn't start here, you probably won't end here, but here is about the only place left where people are willing to put up with you. So you didn't 'pick it' in the sense you claim. You deserve no praise for having wound up here, any more than a pinball deserves praise for eventually falling through the bumpers and exiting the field.
But we do understand quite well that it is critical to your delusions of adequacy that you give your opponents stature, lest your dismissal be even more devastating than you already feel it to be. After all, you're being dismissed by important people, on an important site -- you are worth thereby.
Gag me with a backhoe, that's tragic and yet nauseating and disgusting.
| Quote |
In this arena there no greater glory than conquering arguments. But either way Wesley and others win in regards to achieve their educational mission... |
See, as I said.
The sad reality is, Gary, that you were a failure long before you showed up here, you were a failure long before you came to the notice of Wesley and many others on this board.
You were a failure before you arrived at Talk Rational, and before then you were a failure at each of the fora you've previously abused with your presence.
You were a failure the minute you started on your grand effort to come up with a 'theory of intelligent design' without having the faintest clue what 'intelligent' or 'design' meant, what phenomena they encompassed, what prior work existed, or even what science is.
You've done none of the pre-work for your task. You have driven in a circle for hundreds of thousands of miles, burning hundreds of thousands of calories, and, as any physics student knows, you have accomplished no work.
|
