On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:01:49 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Science asks for demonstrations of truth

You haven't demonstrated the truth of that statement.

Science either asks for demonstrations of truth or it doesn't.

                                                                               It in fact
appears to be a totally gratuitous assumption on your part.

Sacree vache!!! Gratuitous assumption on my part???

There must be some
reason we keep science around besides keeping academics guessing.

                                                                                        But you're
welcome to it, if it makes you a little less bored today.

~v~~

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:00:40 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tell you what. We'll settle just for having you demonstrate your own
conception of truth instead of complaining about mine.

Tell you what. Let's not. That would be returning to your little two
line script mentioned earlier, and that seems like an *awfully*
tedious game.

In other words you're just a common fraud.

YWH wrote:

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.

Your hoof-print is unmistakeable, Lester.

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

Tell you what. Let's not. That would be returning to your little two
line script mentioned earlier, and that seems like an *awfully*
tedious game.

Science asks for demonstrations of truth

You haven't demonstrated the truth of that statement.

It in fact
appears to be a totally gratuitous assumption on your part.

But you're
welcome to it, if it makes you a little less bored today.

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:01:49 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Science asks for demonstrations of truth
'calls', might be better; apotheosis, not a good idea, though!
You haven't demonstrated the truth of that statement.
Empirical or logical?
Science either asks for demonstrations of truth or it doesn't.
A true proposition.
It in fact
appears to be a totally gratuitous assumption on your part.
Sacree vache!!! Gratuitous assumption on my part??? There must be
some reason we keep science around besides keeping academics
guessing.
Inversion: Science keeps us around! How so?
But you're
welcome to it, if it makes you a little less bored today.
~v~~
--

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

What an interesting statement there, Zick. You claim, apparently, that
because two lines always intersect at a single point, the angle
between the lines cannot be determined. Well, then. Hmm... Don't know
what to suggest except to take it up with your fourth grade math
teacher.

I think established science is procedural: do this and you will 'see'
that.

Knowledge is statistical, conjectural within an historical framework:
to make it science costs!

We don't support science enough because we curl up in front of it with
a beer and a takeaway.

Excellent point! What you need to do next is arrive at an operational
definition for 'pile'. An art object, a clock, bottom of an aquariam,
make glass ... . In each case you will need to consider problemns of
measurement and variation... . But that's science! That's life!

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:56:57 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

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

What an interesting statement there, Zick. You claim, apparently, that
because two lines always intersect at a single point, the angle
between the lines cannot be determined. Well, then. Hmm... Don't know
what to suggest except to take it up with your fourth grade math
teacher.

Which is exactly why science demands demonstrations of truth and not
just supernatural scriptural citations and why you're an academic and
not a scientist.

There are no right angles between equators and common
intersecting longitudes. Longitudes approach right angles with the
equator at the point of intersection but right angles lie between the
tangents to the equator and longitudes.

No "points" on longitudes are
ever parallel to other points on common longitudes

and you're either
too lazy or stupid to grasp the point but not too lazy or stupid to
run your mouth as if you knew what you're talking about instead of
just a partisan hack.

~v~~

On Apr 28, 11:40 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:00:40 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tell you what. We'll settle just for having you demonstrate your own
conception of truth instead of complaining about mine.

Tell you what. Let's not. That would be returning to your little two
line script mentioned earlier, and that seems like an *awfully*
tedious game.

In other words you're just a common fraud.

In other words, you are willing to toss out random baitings following
the phrase "in other words". In other words, you're willing to write
down other words that have nothing to do with the original words, but
it must make you feel good to write down other words when you can't
get anywhere with the original words.

On Apr 28, 11:45 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:01:49 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Science asks for demonstrations of truth

You haven't demonstrated the truth of that statement.

Science either asks for demonstrations of truth or it doesn't.

Or it asks for something else entirely. Which appears to be something
that eludes you.

                                                                               It in fact
appears to be a totally gratuitous assumption on your part.

Sacree vache!!! Gratuitous assumption on my part???

Yes. Didn't I just say that?

There must be some
reason we keep science around besides keeping academics guessing.

                                                                                        But you're
welcome to it, if it makes you a little less bored today.

~v~~

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:30:27 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:00:40 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tell you what. We'll settle just for having you demonstrate your own
conception of truth instead of complaining about mine.

Tell you what. Let's not. That would be returning to your little two
line script mentioned earlier, and that seems like an *awfully*
tedious game.

In other words you're just a common fraud.

In other words, you are willing to toss out random baitings following
the phrase "in other words". In other words, you're willing to write
down other words that have nothing to do with the original words, but
it must make you feel good to write down other words when you can't
get anywhere with the original words.

You're getting way too bitchy to carry on a polite conversation.

Go
browbeat some students.

~v~~

It's fascinating that modern mathematikers, shrinks, empirics, set
theorists, quantum theorists and academics in general spend their
entire professional lives trying to explain things to themselves they
can't explain to people who pay their bills.

They change the terms of
argument because they complain generic terms are inexact when the real
problem is they themselves are too lazy or stupid figure out what
people talking about in the first place.Then they sit around insisting
unless people agree to speak in the same tongues they're unscientific.

~v~~

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:56:57 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

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

What an interesting statement there, Zick. You claim, apparently, that
because two lines always intersect at a single point, the angle
between the lines cannot be determined. Well, then. Hmm... Don't know
what to suggest except to take it up with your fourth grade math
teacher.

Which is exactly why science demands demonstrations of truth and not
just supernatural scriptural citations and why you're an academic and
not a scientist.

Actually, I *was* an academic *and* a scientist. Now I'm just a
scientist.

There are no right angles between equators and common
intersecting longitudes. Longitudes approach right angles with the
equator at the point of intersection but right angles lie between the
tangents to the equator and longitudes.

That's another interesting statement. So you you state, without
demonstration of the truth of the statement,

that angles can only be
measured between the intersection of straight lines in a higher
dimensional (here 3D) embedding space and not between lines in the
(here 2D) original space.

Whatever gives you that impression?

Also,
the lines in the original (2D) space are completely straight in that
space -- perhaps you need a definition of straight that doesn't rely
on a higher dimensional embedding space.

Moreover, what makes you
think that you cannot define the angle between two intersecting curved
lines at the point of intersection? Or do you just declare that by
fiat and hope for the best?

No "points" on longitudes are
ever parallel to other points on common longitudes

As far as I know "points" are never parallel in general. Good thing we
were talking about lines.

and you're either
too lazy or stupid to grasp the point but not too lazy or stupid to
run your mouth as if you knew what you're talking about instead of
just a partisan hack.