Steve Kilbane wrote:
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something bothering you?
You could say that, yes.
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).
Well, if I'm saying that "I'm wrong" then that must be a mistake! But then I must have been wrong if I said that I was wrong, because that was wrong. If you follow me.
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:
Ooooh. Luggage rack.
"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,
But I am, so Popper is wrong.
and it's your assertion
that you both can and do, to which I object.
I can see that, but you are wrong Steve.
I don't need to provide any
counter evidence - the possibility that such might exist is enough to remove certainty.
That is anti-thought Steve. By saying Popper is right, you are actually contradicting what Popper says. How do you know Popper is right? If "knowledge [...] cannot be verified through inductive reasoning," then how does Popper know that he is right? How did he come to that conclusion? Did he use inductive reasoning? In which case, how can he be right? "No one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct," therefore we cannot assume Popper to be correct when we apply his own system. "The sign below is true," "the sign above is false." This is a trap Steve, please get yourself out of it.
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.
It is there. Gan is a Killer. I'm sorry if you like Gan, Steve, but then Gan would want you to like him. He's a trap as well. He'd kill you.
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.
Gan is a killer who particularly enjoys killing women. When we go through more episodes, then you'll see. He's already killed a Guard unnecessarily in Space Fall, there are going to be a few more surprises when we get to Cygnus Alpha.
In summary: one
of your "facts" is pure supposition, meaning your conclusion is arguable, and your method flawed.
Did you know, there is a very high rate of suicide among philosophy students? I think I now understand why.
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.
It's true that the audience will see if something's wrong, but who puts the text there in the first place? The writer. It is also clear you don't know how a recording studio works.
Not to mention admitting that the production process involves
change, however small (some does not equal none).
Oh dear, Steve. I have made a promise to your friend that I will be nice to you, but god give me patience, and can you make it soon? Some mistakes will always be made, that's unavoidable. The guard Gan kills in Space Fall appears again later in the background. This was a mistake, but if you analyse the text you'll see that the guard was supposed to have been killed by Gan.
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.
More philosophising. The truth is always simple Steven.
However, I don't expect you to agree to any of this.
Then you were right. I don't.
More likely, you'll
do one of:
- just say "you're wrong", without any supporting argument.
I have given a great deal of supporting evidence to this lyst. If you choose not to read it, or to ignore it then that is not my fault.
- be sarcastic, without any counter argument.
I was sarcastic and it has made you angry. Some people on this lyst know exactly what I am saying. It is sometimes very difficult to determine who is a prisoner and who is a warder. Sometimes a prisoner will be savaged by accident, especially if, to all intents and purposes, he is dressed as a warder. Take the uniform off Steve.
- go off on a tangent in the hope that I will forget that you haven't
answered.
That was not a tangent. I was trying to tell you something. Go back and look at what I wrote and read it carefully.
- give a largely meaningless phrase (cf "animal camouflage").
It has meaning.
- ignore the bits you can't disagree with.
Not true.
but that's okay. Whether you accept the point is not my problem.
I think it is.
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.
I've come across Popper before, but he wasn't always called "Popper."
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.
Don't let your anger blind you.
Jenny
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
Jenny Kaye