NortonH Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: No. Are you proposing a strawman to add your already prodigious collection of fallacies and contradictions? As an independent observer on this thread that does seem to be the standard response when they are in a bit of a fix, Reg. I get the impression that they are just trying to keep batting you away and hope you leave rather than just admit you have a point.
DrP Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 Just now, NortonH said: As an independent observer on this thread that does seem to be the standard response when they are in a bit of a fix, Reg. I get the impression that they are just trying to keep batting you away and hope you leave rather than just admit you have a point. No - he is arguing about the definition of the word knowledge from what I can tell. 15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: No. Are you proposing a strawman to add your already prodigious collection of fallacies and contradictions? NO. Not that I am aware. OK - Back to basics - WHICH fallaciy and contradiction. Don't start with the definition of the word knowledge again though - we have been round in circles about that. If you can't understand that words have subtle different meanings in language then I guess you will run into problems with communication all the time. The word knowledge can cover a wide range of things and you could write a book about it. What contradictions are you talking about?
Reg Prescott Posted November 15, 2018 Author Posted November 15, 2018 1 minute ago, DrP said: No - he is arguing about the definition of the word knowledge from what I can tell. Yeah, it's all just silly semantics. Everyone knows a claim that "knowledge is gained every time a model is updated" is really just another way of saying "it is not the case that knowledge is gained every time a model is updated". -1
DrP Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, NortonH said: As an independent observer on this thread that does seem to be the standard response when they are in a bit of a fix, Reg What do you see as a fix here? That we can't differentiate when we mean the word knowledge to be information and current understanding compared to truths. It's just semantics. 21 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: I But is this based on anything more substantive than wishful thinking? Curing cancer and all that is just swell -- wish you'd hurry up (*cough cough*). Doesn't seem at all relevant to the issue at hand, though Science has produced many medical cures and preventions from disease over the years - to suggest otherwise is laughable. I'm back to work - bye for now. Thanks for the chat. Not sure we got anywhere though.
Reg Prescott Posted November 15, 2018 Author Posted November 15, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, DrP said: Science has produced many medical cures and preventions from disease over the years - to suggest otherwise is laughable. I didn't suggest otherwise. Chalk up another strawman fallacy. Oh, and the topic is not science curing diseases. That one would be subsumed under "the fallacy of irrelevance", I suppose. Or a red herring -- of which there are two kinds, of course (a regular red herring and an absolute red herring). Edited November 15, 2018 by Reg Prescott
DrP Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: I didn't suggest otherwise. Chalk up another strawman fallacy. Oh, and the topic is not science curing diseases. That one would be subsumed under "the fallacy of irrelevance", I suppose. Or a red herring -- of which there are two kinds, of course. There are at least 3 kinds of red herring if you count male and female herrings as being different. There are probably many types... my KNOWLEDGE of the subject isn't great - I am just a roll mop layman. 12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: Oh, and the topic is not science curing diseases. That one would be subsumed under "the fallacy of irrelevance", I suppose Well you brought it up when you started talking about cancer research progress as some sort of support for your claim that science was a succession of theories about nothing. As if the current progress in any one research project reflect the entire history of scientific advancement. We have cured many illnesses - so I would say that it isn't a succession of theories about nothing - I'd say it was practically successful. 12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: Chalk up another strawman fallacy. So no - again. Edited November 15, 2018 by DrP
Reg Prescott Posted November 15, 2018 Author Posted November 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, DrP said: There are at least 3 kinds of red herring if you count male and female herrings as being different. There are probably many types... my KNOWLEDGE of the subject isn't great - I am just a roll mop layman. Well you brought it up when you started talking about cancer research progress as some sort of support for your claim that science was a succession of theories about nothing. As if the current progress in any one research project reflect the entire history of scientific advancement. We have cured many illnesses - so I would say that it isn't a succession of theories about nothing - I'd say it was practically successful. So no - again. Dude, this is truly pathetic. And you questioned my honesty? I've seen more intellectual integrity at a pirates convention. -2
DrP Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said: I daresay you wouldn't. But is this based on anything more substantive than wishful thinking? Curing cancer and all that is just swell -- wish you'd hurry up (*cough cough*). Doesn't seem at all relevant to the issue at hand, though. You bought it up here. You are claiming that because we haven't cured cancer we have a string of theories about nothing. That was what it was in response to. I then said that we have cured many many illness using science. How is that dishonest? You can't counter it so you attack? 21 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said: Dude, this is truly pathetic. And you questioned my honesty? You know the herring thing was an attempt at humour - I can only assume that you are finding my statement about science having a very good track record of curing illnesses to be in error - which, as I suggested above, is laughable. We have eradicated many diseases. How is this dishonest or pathetic? . Edited November 15, 2018 by DrP
swansont Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 ! Moderator Note Closed pending review. We have tangents that have violated the directions given in previous modnotes
swansont Posted November 16, 2018 Posted November 16, 2018 ! Moderator Note After discussion is has been decided that this will remain closed. The OP has twice delved into an area of discussion that is closed
Recommended Posts