Niles Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria (Page 3)

zeffur
zeffur: If they aren't true, then why should anyone give a turd about any of them??
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Do you have a better idea? Spit tobacco?
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Because it's intellectually stimulating, I suppose.

And I learned a lot about trilobites.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Did you know they have 18 lenses?

Well, till they evolved.
4 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: The purpose of science is supposed to be about defining what is true. We've had this discussion before. If it can't do that then it is irrelevant..
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "The purpose of science is supposed to be about defining what is true. "


And you've been elected spokesman for all science?
4 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: No more than you have. But it's obvious that's what the point of science is--do you dispute that fact??
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Even Blackshoes knows this: All generalizations are false. Including this one.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "But it's obvious that's what the point of science is--do you dispute that fact??"


It's not obvious to me, dude.

Ask ten scientists what the aim of science is, and I daresay you'll get ten different answers.

Go ask 'em
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: They're an epileptic bunch
4 years ago Report
1
zeffur
zeffur: Those that define no truth are not doing their job.
Those that define false premises to promote their beliefs are frauds.
Your epileptic bunch appear to be the latter.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Epileptic was a George W thing.

Perhaps he meant eclectic.

And perhaps you voted for him.
4 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: Read the following article as it might help you to unscrew your confusion from it's corroded socket:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/questioning-truth-reality-and-the-role-of-science-20180524/
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Dude, you're totally clueless. You are once again bloviating on topics you know Jack shit about.

Go ask Pierre Duhem what the aim of science is.

He will not say "truth".
4 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: No, I'm far beyond your comprehension--which is why you don't understand.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Er, dude, I've read it from the horse's mouth.

Wanna borrow my Gould and Eldredge collection?

Might give you a break from Harry Potter.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "I'm far beyond your comprehension"


Well, can you spare a dime?
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Ever read Duhem?

Or Poincare?

or Mach?

Or Bohr?

Or van Fraassen?

Thought not.
4 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: Ever read the article that I just cited?
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Ever read Hempel?

Ever read Carnap?

Popper?

Harry Potter?

You're just an embarrassment, dude.

4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Ok, let me take a look.....

while you catch up on your Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
4 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: The philosophy of science without the practical truths of science is useless. Practical science without truths is useless also.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Perhaps if you read a little, you might not be such an embarrassment.
4 years ago Report
1
zeffur
zeffur: I wouldn't waste my time reading Harry Potter as it is just as useful as Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: well, try Pornhub
4 years ago Report
0