ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something bothering you?
Steve Kilbane wrote:
>Sorry, no. Saying it does, doesn't work, either. See Popper.
I have evidence, see my emails, or is that too much trouble for you
as
well?
I've read them. You're wrong.
Um, you're replying to your own comment here (which I assume is a mistake).
Britannica.com:
"Austrian-born British philosopher (b. July 28, 1902, Vienna, Austria-Hungary--d. Sept. 17, 1994, Croydon, Surrey, England), believed that knowledge--particularly scientific knowledge--evolves from individual experience and cannot be verified through inductive reasoning. Popper postulated that since no one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct, it is necessary only to discover one observed exception to the hypothesis to prove it false."
Have you found an observed exception to my hypothesis, Steve?
First off, you either haven't read all of the above, haven't understood it, or are ignoring it. So here it is again:
"knowledge [...] cannot be verified through inductive reasoning."
and:
"no one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct"
both of which mean you can't *know* you're correct, and it's your assertion that you both can and do, to which I object. I don't need to provide any counter evidence - the possibility that such might exist is enough to remove certainty.
But since you're asking, yes: there is no direct evidence what manner the limiter's malfunction takes. You're claiming it's in the subtext, but that's just another wording for "an educated guess," and one which I've pointed out is a bad one. Since it's not explicit, it's not verifiable, which means that aspects of your conclusion that depend on your assertion about the limiter are not verified either. In summary: one of your "facts" is pure supposition, meaning your conclusion is arguable, and your method flawed.
The same goes for your "one version of correct". Generally, you've said it was "the text", but refused to define "text" when asked to. Yesterday, you said:
If the director doesn't like how the actor does it, s/he will ask the actor to redo the scene. The director tells the actor how to do it, and puts the audience right.
which conflicts with your frequent assertion that the writer is the one who's in control. Not to mention admitting that the production process involves change, however small (some does not equal none).
So your "body of evidence", from which you draw everything else about your conclusion, is actually a morass of interpretation, in itself. Given that, stating that you're undeniably correct is just absurd.
However, I don't expect you to agree to any of this. More likely, you'll do one of: - just say "you're wrong", without any supporting argument. - be sarcastic, without any counter argument. - go off on a tangent in the hope that I will forget that you haven't answered. - give a largely meaningless phrase (cf "animal camoflage"). - ignore the bits you can't disagree with.
but that's okay. Whether you accept the point is not my problem. What I think is more important is that you've at least read *some* of the text you quoted about Popper and, at some level, learned something about constructing an argument. Whether you admit it or not, I hope that it'll help you in later life, and improve the quality of your hypotheses and debate.
steve