Likewise, I believe that I stated with sufficient clarity exactly what I
meant to say and that anyone not seeking to mince words, would understand
the point without further clarification being required. I suspect most here
did. Whether they agree with it or not is of course their inalienable
right.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:25:22 -0800
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Tom C wrote:
The spell it out for since I obviously have trouble uinderstanding your
precise diction.
It would be difficult to make the precise diction of my statement any
simpler:
"With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or
Science."
As to what it meant, the statements to which that one pertained
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Tom C wrote:
Nothing unreal exists.
Something that is not real cannot be studied in the sense of detecting,
measuring, or collecting empirical evidence. It's always something
real or the manifestation of something real that is studied. Science
(used loosely) or those studying a particular thing may not understand
what it is they are studying and therefore go off on errant paths
making hypothesis that postulate the existence of something unreal.
I would venture to say that if science is the search for and obtaining
of knowledge, and that knowledge is unflawed, therefore can be called
true (truth), that it is also real. Those things found to be unreal
"drop off the radar", as they are not real, and are realized to be
scientifically untrue.
Tom C.
are difficult to interpret into anything meaningful. They are vague and
without much obvious meaning in the scope of either Science or Philosophy,
sound much like the ramblings of a pop philosopher. If you had studied
Philosophy or Science, you would have expressed what you meant with more
precision and clarity. I have studied both Science and Philosophy.
Although I consider myself neither a scientist nor a philosopher, I feel
confident that I understand the language well enough to recognize whether
a set of statements expresses scientific or philosophic concepts with
clarity and meaning. Since I don't know what you actually have studied,
and don't want to imply that you are stupid, the best I can say is that
the statements *demonstrate* little study of either.
The only thing that my statement implies is that your statements are worth
about as much as the pop philosopher's ramblings that you have rejected.
That's the value judgement: my opinion.
If you would care to articulate what you wanted to say more clearly, I
might be able to understand what you meant. I might even agree with you.
But the truth of my statement remains.
Godfrey
