On Dec 4, 1:33 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But, not always. For example, spontaneous fission of a radioactive > isotope is treated as probabilistic/ a. > Somewhere above. I did say barring the limitations of current > eperimental (mearuring) instruments or methodological or scientiffic > "theory" shortfallls.> I mean, > > taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the > > limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the > > "theoretical method".... > > Oh yeah.... there it is... >
Exactly which of those "or"ed nouns applied to radioactive atoms? Amazingly, you didn't narrow it down the second time. > ...his education is irrelevant. /a. > > As for Mr. Einseele... I never asked his IQ... but I would assume that > it is probably equal, maybe even higher than my own, maybe even higher > than yours.... I don't know if IQ is always all that pertinent... > education can't hurt... Wrong. Eduction can hurt when the subject is dogmatic as it often is when there is little empirical validation. > I think it would prove to be a "bitch" for even > a genius to figure out brain surgery or rocket science all on his/her > own... from scratch..... > > Einseele has read De Saussure, I believe, on linguistics and probably > others.... I gave DeS... and some otheers a try, but I was more of a And, amazingly, you preferred not to comment on the deterministic treatment of bare plurals in those papers, so much as comment on Einseele's IQ. > curious sort, I soon gravitated to other, more "philosophical " or > epistemological language concerns.... I gravitated toward came to > favor nominalism, myself. > You gravitated toward a void of empirical validation. You are attracted to voids of empirical validation. > On Dec 1, 1:34 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 30, 2:15 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > aruzinsky.... > > > FYI , Einseele is fairly well educated when it comes to > > > linguistics..... you, on the other hand, do not appear to be all that > > > knowledgeble of linguistics , at all..... a little courtesy on your > > > part might be in order.... > > > A. Einseele has repeatedly demonstrated a low IQ therefore his > > education is irrelevant. > > > B. If I were very knowledgeable about linguistics, I wouldn't have > > posed the subject as a question. > > > C. I referred to specific papers that I do not regard as science, or, > > at least not good science. > > > > On another front... statistics is usually a certain sign or indicatior > > > of a "Soft Science".... Most "hard empirical Sciences" strive to > > > obtain a single fixed result for any given experiment... > > > In the aforementioned papers, seems to me that probabilistic phenomena > > were treated as deterministic. Bad science or not science, you sort > > it out. > > > > I mean, > > > taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the > > > limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the > > > "theoretical method".... > > > But, soft sciences depend on statistical ranges..... e.g. 25% of > > > respondents sustain this view....etc.... > > > But, not always. For example, spontaneous fission of a radioactive > > isotope is treated as probabilistic.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
