Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.

That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.

On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1 Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]

On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

--
'foolsrushin.'

On Apr 24, 6:22 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.

That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.

To communicate what? Science prefers truth.

You haven't demonstrated the truth of that statement, have you?

On Apr 24, 6:22 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which "parallel lines of longitude" did you have in mind exactly?
Perhaps you could show us some?

Sure. Pick up a globe. Look at them. The angles between all the lines
of longitude and a common line (the equator) are equal (90 degrees).
By theorem, two lines that cross a common line with identical angles
are parallel. You may want to look that up in a geometry book where
the truth of the meaning of that statement is clearly demonstrated.

And we thank you one and all for this confession of faith. Science,
however, understandably prefers demonstrations of truth.

That's why I recommended you pick up a geometry book, where that
demonstration of truth can be found. Now, if you find geometry books
icky, perhaps this isn't the best solution for you. If you find
reading in general to be icky, then I'd say your chance of
encountering any demonstration of truth to be rather much less than
otherwise.

On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1 Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]

PD wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1 Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]

Nailed it.

When asked to prove what _he_ says, his response is also simple:
1. Obfuscate.
2. Go to 1.

Glad I've kill-filed him.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:29:09 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:22 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which "parallel lines of longitude" did you have in mind exactly?
Perhaps you could show us some?

Sure. Pick up a globe. Look at them. The angles between all the lines
of longitude and a common line (the equator) are equal (90 degrees).
By theorem, two lines that cross a common line with identical angles
are parallel. You may want to look that up in a geometry book where
the truth of the meaning of that statement is clearly demonstrated.

And we thank you one and all for this confession of faith. Science,
however, understandably prefers demonstrations of truth.

That's why I recommended you pick up a geometry book, where that
demonstration of truth can be found. Now, if you find geometry books
icky, perhaps this isn't the best solution for you. If you find
reading in general to be icky, then I'd say your chance of
encountering any demonstration of truth to be rather much less than
otherwise.

Science asks for demonstrations of truth and you respond with
scriptural citations and assurances "seek and ye shall find".

The difficulty is that the equator and longitudes only intersect at
single isolated points and clearly it's impossible to determine right
angularity from isolated points of intersection

or that longitudes can
ever in fact be parallel. Which is why the question was posed in the
first place.

~v~~

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:49:17 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1  Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]

Difference is I can demonstrate the truth of one thing

whereas you
can't demonstrate the truth of anything.

Tell you what. We'll settle just for having you demonstrate your own
conception of truth instead of complaining about mine.

~v~~

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:29:09 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:22 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which "parallel lines of longitude" did you have in mind exactly?
Perhaps you could show us some?

Sure. Pick up a globe. Look at them. The angles between all the lines
of longitude and a common line (the equator) are equal (90 degrees).
By theorem, two lines that cross a common line with identical angles
are parallel. You may want to look that up in a geometry book where
the truth of the meaning of that statement is clearly demonstrated.

And we thank you one and all for this confession of faith. Science,
however, understandably prefers demonstrations of truth.

That's why I recommended you pick up a geometry book, where that
demonstration of truth can be found. Now, if you find geometry books
icky, perhaps this isn't the best solution for you. If you find
reading in general to be icky, then I'd say your chance of
encountering any demonstration of truth to be rather much less than
otherwise.

Science asks for demonstrations of truth

and you respond with
scriptural citations and assurances "seek and ye shall find".

The difficulty is that the equator and longitudes only intersect at
single isolated points and clearly it's impossible to determine right
angularity from isolated points of intersection or that longitudes can
ever in fact be parallel. Which is why the question was posed in the
first place.

~v~~

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:23:53 -0400, herbzet <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote:



PD wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1 Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]

Nailed it.

When asked to prove what _he_ says, his response is also simple:
1. Obfuscate.
2. Go to 1.

Glad I've kill-filed him.

Thou shalt have no other god before me. Obviously Lester prefers
truth. But you really need to explain your understanding of truth
which Lester obfuscates and you don't. Otherwise despite your faith
we're forced to conclude that the only significant difference between
you and Uncle Al is that Al is polite.

YWH

Thou shalt kill file all others before me.

PD wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~
Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1  Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]
Nailed it.
When asked to prove what _he_ says, his response is also simple:
1. Obfuscate.
2. Go to 1.
Glad I've kill-filed him.
--
hzI

foolsrushin wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~
Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

I think that was Wittgensteins point, really. [U may be right!]

Anyway science isn't there to communicate truth, its there to arrive at
conceptual hyptherses that fiot the facts as they are agreed, and carry
on fitting the facts so well as to allow prediction of the future to be
achieved in limited cases with remarkable accuracy.

--
'foolsrushin.'
--

foolsrushin wrote:
On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick<dontbot...@nowhere.net>  wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~
Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.
The topic of vagueness in language is studied by philosophers.  It goes
back at least to the Sororites' paradox about removing from a pile of
sand one grain of sand at a time, thus ending up with something
that isn't a pile of sand, and the realization that "pile of sand"
is vague.
It seems to me like the type of question that is never definitely settled.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-729Fall-2005/...
 
David Bernier

On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick<dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.