[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:00:42 -0700 (PDT)

for crying out loud I meant leads
  .....this spell/grammer check is about useless.... if I had time to proof 
read I wouldn't need it!

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    Philip,.
  Theories take prescience over others based on Observation and experience that 
is "Science" 101 AKA the "Scientific method".....It is just that HC has no 
Observation or experience without assuming AC is true first that is why it is 
not a logically valid path to pursue...If experiments and observations had been 
made from other frames of reference that did show that all frames are equal 
that would be one thing but the only experiments every conducted do not show 
that it can only be imagined as true and what?s worse it is trumped up as being 
the most plausible...Philip that makes no sense whatsoever if you are going to 
support a theory as logical or more plausible then at least in Science you are 
supposed to go where the evidence Leeds you not where you imagine the evidence 
could be going....how can this be so hard to understand?........This concept is 
not only understood by MS it is even stated as a demand of MS..... the thing is 
they just don?t practice it, all I am doing
 is showing you that they don?t and how you can know and see that.


philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:       But Allen you do not allow 
any theoretical construct s  because they are mere imagined possibilities for 
an explanation. If you are allowed to imagine a theory based upon what you see, 
so also must I and anyone else be allowed to imagine alternatives. Theories are 
not facts, as I have repeatedly told Paul. and you cannot demand that your 
theory is to take precedence over any other. 
   
  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:31 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (no subject)
  

  Trial & error is useful for finding things that work. Or even conducting 
experimentations..... but the issue here is theoretical constructs of how or 
why it works and the logical paths for discovery of that issue, not the fact 
that sagnac or other inferometers do in fact work and it was not know before 
hand that they would or do. I don?t have a problem with trial and error most of 
what we have is from that but trial and error dose not address the issue and 
certainly does not prove a theoretical construct nor does it ascertain the 
proof of why something works that was found by trail and error. Trial and error 
only give you a shortcut if you happen to stumble across one to the work itself 
not the how or why it works unless you by other trial and error seek to 
discover that. Even then you still only have the observations and experience 
available to you for making or deducing conclusions you cannot beg the 
questions to prove the very questions you are begging and claim it
 logically valid conclusion(s). ,................ 
  To conduct any observation or experiment that it is designed to indicate a 
motion or a position such that it does indeed indicate that observably, to go 
on and make a conclusion that while it is true here it is only true here but 
not anywhere else even though we have not tested that without a having 
performed it anywhere else or an observational reason for such a statement is 
not logically valid... Therefore even if it were true there is no logically 
valid thought process based on LOE that can be claimed for having reached such 
a conclusion.


Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     DIV {   MARGIN: 0px  }        
    Allen D
  You basic position seems to me to be that formal logic is the only method of 
resolving a proposition, or that failing to include its use, will result in 
failure. This leads to the ridiculous position of grown men sitting around 
wasting their time debating how many teeth a horse has and seriously expecting 
that the matter might be satisfactorily resolved.
  Logic is a useful tool, but it is by no means the only tool. Trial and error 
for instance works. It requires no skills in logic, maths, expression or a 
hundred other skills. But though it is inefficient, none the less, it works. 
And there are many other ways to resolve propositions.
  Now you could make a giant advance in your understanding of life, the 
universe and everything if you would give a simple answer to Philip's question 
-- are you standing on world A or world B? This is a proposition which does not 
require the use of abstruse esoteric formal logic, or complex maths, or a 
Shakespearean command of English. It does however require a desire to arrive at 
a resolution. Give it a try.
  Paul D
  PS I'm not deliberately dodging the issues you've raised -- we can return to 
those. What I'm trying to do is to get you to see that this rarefied logical 
approach you've used on this forum for the whole of the time I've been here -- 
simply isn't working. It may work among others who share your approach, but it 
isn't working here. The aphorism concerning cats and the manner of skinning 
them, is relevant.
   



Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
    
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 21/03/2007 
7:52 AM



Other related posts: