Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote: Don't forget Mill either. Well, dammit, I guess I'm going to have to post the whole thing. :-) Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [I verified that this line is presented as Schopenhauer and Hegel in at least one case, so maybe they did it a little differently in some presentations] And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raisin' of the wrist. Socrates himself was permanently pissed. John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away, 'alf a crate of whiskey every day! Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, and Hobbes was fond of his Dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink, therefore I am. Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. -- Monty Python -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ)
Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote: But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!) That's an interesting site, Kostas! g They left out Cotty's favourite: Heia! asellum meum palma ferite ac me Eruptionem nominate! 3 gold stars for the first correct translation... Robertus scripsit Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse. Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.
RE: Bailing out.
-Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 April 2006 18:11 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bob W wrote: But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!) That's an interesting site, Kostas! g They left out Cotty's favourite: Heia! asellum meum palma ferite ac me Eruptionem nominate! 3 gold stars for the first correct translation... Robertus scripsit Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse. Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert. facillimus!
Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 April 2006 18:11 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bob W wrote: But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!) That's an interesting site, Kostas! g They left out Cotty's favourite: Heia! asellum meum palma ferite ac me Eruptionem nominate! 3 gold stars for the first correct translation... Robertus scripsit Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse. Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert. facillimus! Gasp! don't get caught at it! At least in public. keith
Re: Bailing out.
keith_w wrote: Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 April 2006 18:11 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bob W wrote: But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!) That's an interesting site, Kostas! g They left out Cotty's favourite: Heia! asellum meum palma ferite ac me Eruptionem nominate! 3 gold stars for the first correct translation... Robertus scripsit Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse. Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert. facillimus! Gasp! don't get caught at it! At least in public. keith Verba tua intellegere non possum. Filone ferreo maxillae tuae iunctae sunt?
Re: Bailing out.
On 30/3/06, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: (well, actually anti-colesteralol* non- hydrowossname spread), and a quick skim of the emails. * q.v. Manuel in Fawlty Towers :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Bailing out.
Paul Stenquist wrote: Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts. Paul Yes, and I used to too...but he fell off his balcony and hit my plonk list last night. I'd rather not have done that, but it's for my mental health... I let my pique rule the moment. I'll be quiet about it all now, and ignore. keith whaley
Re: Bailing out.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, keith_w wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts. Paul Yes, and I used to too...but he fell off his balcony and hit my plonk list last night. But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!)
Re: Bailing out.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, keith_w wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts. Paul Yes, and I used to too...but he fell off his balcony and hit my plonk list last night. But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!) That's an interesting site, Kostas! g keith
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/30/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipsome buttered toast snip Only in England, must one specifiy ~buttered~ toast... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:58:25 +0100, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/30/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipsome buttered toast snip Only in England, must one specifiy ~buttered~ toast... Definitely. One does not wish to consume some poly-unsaturated chemical mess. :-) Vive le beurre! John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would hesitate to say, however, that Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Wittgenstein, Russell, Arendt, Sartre, Camus (my personal fave) ought to have their work dismissed. I may disagree with some of them, I may not understand some of them g, but what they've said is still worthy of consideration, IMHO. As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume. Now as I peruse my list, I notice that I didn't mention any of the British Empiricists, so if I'm going to mention Hume, I should also mention Berkeley and Locke. No slight intended towards any of our British listers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey wrote: good old boy bumpkin philosophy and half-formed thoughts I really haven't found any good old boy bumpkins on this list. Many pretend to be such, but after many years here I recognize it as a charade. This list has an outstanding group of minds, regardless of degree credentials. Half-formed thoughts is another issue... We all have those from time to time. And what is it about these recent flame war threads. We have a couple of them going here. Is it a full moon or what? Regards, Bob S. On 3/30/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 29, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts. Paul I agree. Keith's attempt at insult is sad compared to graywolf's. Perhaps it's the best he can do. The schmuck tells you all that he deliberately tried to insult me, I responded with something funny, and I'm the bad guy. The lack of any humor, or any cleverness, whatsoever in these attacks is pitiable, not insulting. I don't talk about things that I know nothing about, or spout pop philosophy in the name of wisdom, or stand on a box proud that I have devised an opinion based on nothing but my lack of education or, what did he call it?, journeyman level employment credentials. You want to debate endlessly the cost of putting an aperture simulator into the next generation camera? Fine, go right ahead, I won't quibble with your meaningful treatises on that subject at all. I did actually study Latin, I did actually study Philosophy and General Semantics in the course of my education, along with a lot of other things. Not only that but I remember the subject matter, I didn't burn it out of my synapses with pot or coke or beer or endless partying. My degree is in Mathematics, and I have worked in Science and Engineering for over 20 years. I enjoyed the efforts of all these studies and that work: love working with the ideas, the concepts, love learning new things. It is with some pain that I read the emails tortured with good old boy bumpkin philosophy and half-formed thoughts, so I did my bit to interject some reasoned discussion. I'm sorry it offends your tender sensibilities, but of course I'm an arrogant snot because I'm not part of the sacred good old boy club of pentax lovers, or was it the stink of darkroom smell lovers? I don't know anymore, you've confused me. But I do find it humorous around here. And I do try to be helpful. Even if you don't appreciate the help, or the subtlety of trying to tell someone he's blowin' smoke out his behind without wanting to say out loud, You're talking nonsense. And unlike others, I don't just bail out when something new and different is put in front of me. I endeavor to learn it, understand it, and then use it to extend my capabilities rather than turn my back on it. If I find I don't like it, see no reason to post a long tortured diatribe to rationalize my decision to do something else. usw, Godfrey PS: Quotes compliments Henry Beard's excellent, wry Latin for All Occasions. ** A child's taunt ** Flexilis sum, gluten es, me resilit, ad te haeret! I'm rubber, you're glue, bounces off me, sticks to you! You can lob insulting remarks at me all you want, I will enjoy seeing who can say something clever. I expect to be disappointed. Make my day. ** Ways to end a conversation ** Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de can debeo congredi ... Excuse me. I have appointment with a man about a dog...
Re: Bailing out.
frank theriault wrote: As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume. David 'ume could outconsume Schoepenhauer and Hegel, and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ)
Re: Bailing out.
Doug Franklin wrote: frank theriault wrote: As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume. David 'ume could outconsume Schoepenhauer and Hegel, and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. Thanks Doug - I was just about to killfile this thread! ;-)
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey, IMO, better the man who hasn't studied all these things and doesn't have to doubt his eyes when he opens them in the morning. Anyway, so much for all that. Cheers, Gautam On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 29, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Sad in a way, isn't it? But I always read his posts. Paul I agree. Keith's attempt at insult is sad compared to graywolf's. Perhaps it's the best he can do. The schmuck tells you all that he deliberately tried to insult me, I responded with something funny, and I'm the bad guy. The lack of any humor, or any cleverness, whatsoever in these attacks is pitiable, not insulting. I don't talk about things that I know nothing about, or spout pop philosophy in the name of wisdom, or stand on a box proud that I have devised an opinion based on nothing but my lack of education or, what did he call it?, journeyman level employment credentials. You want to debate endlessly the cost of putting an aperture simulator into the next generation camera? Fine, go right ahead, I won't quibble with your meaningful treatises on that subject at all. I did actually study Latin, I did actually study Philosophy and General Semantics in the course of my education, along with a lot of other things. Not only that but I remember the subject matter, I didn't burn it out of my synapses with pot or coke or beer or endless partying. My degree is in Mathematics, and I have worked in Science and Engineering for over 20 years. I enjoyed the efforts of all these studies and that work: love working with the ideas, the concepts, love learning new things. It is with some pain that I read the emails tortured with good old boy bumpkin philosophy and half-formed thoughts, so I did my bit to interject some reasoned discussion. I'm sorry it offends your tender sensibilities, but of course I'm an arrogant snot because I'm not part of the sacred good old boy club of pentax lovers, or was it the stink of darkroom smell lovers? I don't know anymore, you've confused me. But I do find it humorous around here. And I do try to be helpful. Even if you don't appreciate the help, or the subtlety of trying to tell someone he's blowin' smoke out his behind without wanting to say out loud, You're talking nonsense. And unlike others, I don't just bail out when something new and different is put in front of me. I endeavor to learn it, understand it, and then use it to extend my capabilities rather than turn my back on it. If I find I don't like it, see no reason to post a long tortured diatribe to rationalize my decision to do something else. usw, Godfrey PS: Quotes compliments Henry Beard's excellent, wry Latin for All Occasions. ** A child's taunt ** Flexilis sum, gluten es, me resilit, ad te haeret! I'm rubber, you're glue, bounces off me, sticks to you! You can lob insulting remarks at me all you want, I will enjoy seeing who can say something clever. I expect to be disappointed. Make my day. ** Ways to end a conversation ** Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de can debeo congredi ... Excuse me. I have appointment with a man about a dog...
Re: Bailing out.
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 22:05:46 -0800 The schmuck tells you all that he deliberately tried to insult me, I responded with something funny, and I'm the bad guy. The lack of any humor, or any cleverness, whatsoever in these attacks is pitiable, not insulting. Schmuck? I think the list would disagree with you on that. I detected little humor at all from you when this got started. Do you perceive yourself as the attacker or the victim? I don't talk about things that I know nothing about, or spout pop philosophy in the name of wisdom, or stand on a box proud that I have devised an opinion based on nothing but my lack of education or, what did he call it?, journeyman level employment credentials. You want to debate endlessly the cost of putting an aperture simulator into the next generation camera? Fine, go right ahead, I won't quibble with your meaningful treatises on that subject at all. Nor do any of us talk about things we know nothing about. The fact that someone may 1) have a differing viewpoint than yourself, or 2) someone may express themselves in terms that don't meet your criteria for a serious discussion, or 3) someone may know less about a certain subject than yourself, doesn't mean the person is uneducated, know nothing about the subject, is unintelligent, or even wrong. Frankly as I go through life I keep coming to the conclusion that *some* of the most educated people are the least intelligent (at least they appear that way). Some tend to get so wrapped up in their own credentials that they stop thinking any further and become close-minded to the diverse and valid viewpoints held by others and blind to the fact that we are all different and the world would be a pretty boring place if we weren't. There is quite a lot that can be learned in other ways than having a formal education. I did actually study Latin, I did actually study Philosophy and General Semantics in the course of my education, along with a lot of other things. Not only that but I remember the subject matter, I didn't burn it out of my synapses with pot or coke or beer or endless partying. My degree is in Mathematics, and I have worked in Science and Engineering for over 20 years. I enjoyed the efforts of all these studies and that work: love working with the ideas, the concepts, love learning new things. It is with some pain that I read the emails tortured with good old boy bumpkin philosophy and half-formed thoughts, so I did my bit to interject some reasoned discussion. I'm sorry it offends your tender sensibilities, but of course I'm an arrogant snot because I'm not part of the sacred good old boy club of pentax lovers, or was it the stink of darkroom smell lovers? I don't know anymore, you've confused me. That's fine that you studied all those things. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It doesn't make you smarter, better, or superior to anyone else on the list. And even if you inherently were, you do little to help the perceptions being made about you by coming across that way (and this way). But I do find it humorous around here. And I do try to be helpful. Even if you don't appreciate the help, or the subtlety of trying to tell someone he's blowin' smoke out his behind without wanting to say out loud, You're talking nonsense. You have been helpful. Your nonsense is someone else's sense. Tom C.
Re: Bailing out.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, I took my picture with this big statue of Hume. I'm going back in early April and I'll get a digital version. I'll even get one slightly out of focus for you, Frank. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/30/2006 8:09:16 AM On 3/29/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would hesitate to say, however, that Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Wittgenstein, Russell, Arendt, Sartre, Camus (my personal fave) ought to have their work dismissed. I may disagree with some of them, I may not understand some of them g, but what they've said is still worthy of consideration, IMHO. As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume. Now as I peruse my list, I notice that I didn't mention any of the British Empiricists, so if I'm going to mention Hume, I should also mention Berkeley and Locke. No slight intended towards any of our British listers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/30/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last time I was in Edinburgh, I took my picture with this big statue of Hume. I'm going back in early April and I'll get a digital version. I'll even get one slightly out of focus for you, Frank. Yeah, Tilt it a bit, too... LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Bailing out.
Don't forget Mill either. -- Cheers, Bob As I was commuting home last night, I realized that I forgot to mention one of my favourite philosophers, David Hume. Now as I peruse my list, I notice that I didn't mention any of the British Empiricists, so if I'm going to mention Hume, I should also mention Berkeley and Locke. No slight intended towards any of our British listers. cheers, frank
RE: Bailing out.
But, Keith, look at the opportunities: http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/DEC0998/0519.html Kostas (Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!) That's an interesting site, Kostas! g They left out Cotty's favourite: Heia! asellum meum palma ferite ac me Eruptionem nominate! 3 gold stars for the first correct translation... Robertus scripsit
Re: Bailing out.
The only comment worth a response ... On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: IMO, better the man who hasn't studied all these things and doesn't have to doubt his eyes when he opens them in the morning. It's hard to figure precisely what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you have a certain reservation about learning and knowledge. That's akin to the foundation of modern primitivist movements along with the fear of scientists, science and technology, and all the other insecurities of intellectual things being fostered by those who seek to control people in the current milieu. I have no doubts in my eyes when I open them in the morning. I am not afraid to know, to understand, to be aware. I have reservations about the inappropriate use of technology, yes, and about the casual use of power without thought or intelligence guiding it. Anyway, so much for all that. So much indeed. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 28, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote: Science by definition is the study of reality. The study of non- reality is properly called mysticism. Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition. Bob
Re: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: On Mar 28, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote: Science by definition is the study of reality. The study of non- reality is properly called mysticism. Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition. Bob Define real. keith whaley
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/28/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in the US, and formerly a telecommunications technician*, and I knew what the term POTS meant. So what? * also formerly a wireman (electrician to lay folk), electro-mechanical technician, mechanic (auto, truck, heavy equipment, and industrial), truck driver, salesman (real estate, automobiles, retail), electronics technician, computer technician, quality control supervisor, 4x4 shop manager, library binder, compositor (typesetter), pressman, engineering technician, security guard, bicycle mechanic, commercial photographer; all paid positions at the journeyman level or above. As well as a dozen other things, either paid at less than journeyman level or as a hobby. Never could stand always doing the same thing (probably a major mistake on my part). About the only thing I ~don't~ see in there is bike messenger. LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
A journeyman security guard!? Shel On 3/28/06, graywolf wrote: * also formerly a wireman (electrician to lay folk), electro-mechanical technician, mechanic (auto, truck, heavy equipment, and industrial), truck driver, salesman (real estate, automobiles, retail), electronics technician, computer technician, quality control supervisor, 4x4 shop manager, library binder, compositor (typesetter), pressman, engineering technician, security guard, bicycle mechanic, commercial photographer; all paid positions at the journeyman level or above.
Re: Bailing out.
Nope, just a commuter. Of couse some would say that is worse because a bicycle commuter only rides in the worst traffic. But I always avoided that main streets as much as possible. After all I am only a bit crazy, not totally insane. You will notice that attorney is not in that list either GRIN. As I commented to our man down-under, Rob Studdert, I intended to become a novelist, but never did learn how to write. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: On 3/28/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in the US, and formerly a telecommunications technician*, and I knew what the term POTS meant. So what? * also formerly a wireman (electrician to lay folk), electro-mechanical technician, mechanic (auto, truck, heavy equipment, and industrial), truck driver, salesman (real estate, automobiles, retail), electronics technician, computer technician, quality control supervisor, 4x4 shop manager, library binder, compositor (typesetter), pressman, engineering technician, security guard, bicycle mechanic, commercial photographer; all paid positions at the journeyman level or above. As well as a dozen other things, either paid at less than journeyman level or as a hobby. Never could stand always doing the same thing (probably a major mistake on my part). About the only thing I ~don't~ see in there is bike messenger. LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition. Bob Bob, I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. Cheers, Gautam
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey, I've heard the term used more and more in software. I guess it's part of the general trend in the US (*) culture towards using important sounding words rather than simple words that are seen as well, simple (and coherent.) This is the same trend that brought us travesties such as ultra- premium and mega optical stabilization. Cheers, Gautam * - Perhaps a few other countries too. On 3/28/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although I agree with your concept, I never once in my 20+ years of being around software development efforts heard the word workflow in connection with programming. There the term used was logic. Workflow describes a higher level process sequence than the logic of a computer program, in my opinion. I started hearing the word in recent years in connection with user interface design and the study of human factors engineering, not programming. I think the following sentence characterizes the difference: Computer programs follow logic, the causal sequence of their instructions, while humans exploit workflow, the conceptual steps of the endeavor to achieve a goal. Logic operates at the start, do this, do this, test: if this then do that, end level. Workflow operates at the transfer RAW files from camera storage to computer storage, convert files to DNG format, open files with Bridge and assign metadata template or remove film from camera and place in processing tank, complete development process, dry film and view on light table level. Godfrey On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:53 PM, graywolf wrote: Workflow is a term from programming. To write a program you have to figure out the steps and their order involved in completing a process. That is what workflow is. In fact any process that involves more than a single step has a workflow. You can not even make a cup of coffee without following a workflow. For instance you have a real problem if you try to drink the cup of coffee before putting it in the cup. However the term is mostly used by computer folk (and those terrible people, efficency experts) thus I can understand your not wanting to deal with it, Frank.
Re: Bailing out.
Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’ --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition.
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: I've heard the term used more and more in software. I guess it's part of the general trend in the US (*) culture towards using important sounding words rather than simple words that are seen as well, simple (and coherent.) Workflow has become important in software development as a design consideration well above the level of programming logic, again driven by the notions of how a human being is going to be able to use the software. That's why you hear the term there more nowadays. This is the same trend that brought us travesties such as ultra- premium and mega optical stabilization. Those are marketing and brand name terms. They have nothing to do with description other than by association. Workflow is a precise modern term: a workflow articulates the conceptual steps to be used in completing a task. It is applicable to many many procedural processes of the past that were referred to with more context specific terms. Familiar as those terms might be, they are not as precise in highlighting the procedural concept advanced by the term workflow. That's why the word has come to be more commonly used. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’ --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition.
Re: Bailing out.
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. Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire know. --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
Re: Bailing out.
You even have software products that handle that layer, for example IBM's MQ Workflow On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: I've heard the term used more and more in software. I guess it's part of the general trend in the US (*) culture towards using important sounding words rather than simple words that are seen as well, simple (and coherent.) Workflow has become important in software development as a design consideration well above the level of programming logic, again driven by the notions of how a human being is going to be able to use the software. That's why you hear the term there more nowadays. This is the same trend that brought us travesties such as ultra- premium and mega optical stabilization. Those are marketing and brand name terms. They have nothing to do with description other than by association. Workflow is a precise modern term: a workflow articulates the conceptual steps to be used in completing a task. It is applicable to many many procedural processes of the past that were referred to with more context specific terms. Familiar as those terms might be, they are not as precise in highlighting the procedural concept advanced by the term workflow. That's why the word has come to be more commonly used. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote: On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition. Bob Bob, I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. Cheers, Gautam Some definitions of science. Reality is not mentioned in any of them: the study of the natural world education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/ systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge. www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation. www.spaceforspecies.ca/glossary/s.htm Primarily the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, particularly in a systematic and organized manner, of spiritual matters. www.gnmagazine.org/bsc/03/glossary.htm The arrangement of concepts in their rational connection to exhibit them as an organic, progressive whole. See Introduction, Lectures on the History of Philosophy 7. www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20Glossary.htm The body of related courses concerned with knowledge of the physical and biological world and with the processes of discovering and validating this knowledge. nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/s.asp a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/ systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable. oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html Then there's this: Science no longer seeks to explain phenomena and arrive at any kind of reality; rather, it now seeks to classify phenomena according to preconceived models. This, however, is what we would call art according to our traditional categories. www.equivalence.com/labor/lab_vf_glo_e.shtml I think that last one sums it up for me pretty well. Bob
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. That deserves a drumroll and flourish of trumpets! Bob
Re: Bailing out.
Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey Actually I find the opposite to be true. Notions of unreality are more closely associated with philosophy, not science. Tom C.
Re: Bailing out.
Philosophy is one of the last things, that I personally would value an education in. It may be interesting, but that's about all it does for me. Tom C. From: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Bailing out. Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:35:48 -0500 On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. That deserves a drumroll and flourish of trumpets! Bob
Re: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: Science no longer seeks to explain phenomena and arrive at any kind of reality; rather, it now seeks to classify phenomena according to preconceived models. This, however, is what we would call art according to our traditional categories. www.equivalence.com/labor/lab_vf_glo_e.shtml I think that last one sums it up for me pretty well. That's why philosophy pretty much tends to be someone else's BS. Tom C.
Re: Bailing out.
With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. Science at one time had the definition of being the search for truth ... This was true in the Middle Ages when the Church controlled all higher institutions of learning in Europe and the search for knowledge was akin to the study of God's Truth. That is no longer the definition of science, the modern definition of science dates from 1933. Science and Truth are not related other than semantically. Truth, Reality, and similar concepts are part of Philosophy: --- philosophy noun ( pl. -phies) the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. - a set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it : a clash of rival socialist philosophies. - the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience : the philosophy of science. - a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior : don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia ‘love of wisdom.’ --- Science deals with systematic study of the observable world, which may or may not be true or real. Godfrey 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. Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’ --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:18:58 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. That may or may not be so. But I believe Graywolf was talking about science. And to me, too, the phrase physical and natural world sounds like another way of describing reality. Anything else, like music, is in our heads. John Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually I find the opposite to be true. Notions of unreality are more closely associated with philosophy, not science. Ontology is the philosophy of being. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. Logical Positivism a worldview based on science and mathematics. In fact, philosophy generally seems rather preoccupied with reality and what it means. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Phenomena may be allowed to exist without the forced imposition of reality. IOW, tabled for future revelations without conclusive opinion. Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote: On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition. Bob Bob, I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. Cheers, Gautam Some definitions of science. Reality is not mentioned in any of them: the study of the natural world education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/ systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge. www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation. www.spaceforspecies.ca/glossary/s.htm Primarily the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, particularly in a systematic and organized manner, of spiritual matters. www.gnmagazine.org/bsc/03/glossary.htm The arrangement of concepts in their rational connection to exhibit them as an organic, progressive whole. See Introduction, Lectures on the History of Philosophy 7. www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20Glossary.htm The body of related courses concerned with knowledge of the physical and biological world and with the processes of discovering and validating this knowledge. nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/s.asp a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/ systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable. oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html Then there's this: Science no longer seeks to explain phenomena and arrive at any kind of reality; rather, it now seeks to classify phenomena according to preconceived models. This, however, is what we would call art according to our traditional categories. www.equivalence.com/labor/lab_vf_glo_e.shtml I think that last one sums it up for me pretty well. Bob __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why philosophy pretty much tends to be someone else's BS. I won't say how much you know or don't know about philosophy, but I disagree vehemently with that statement. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
His statement says that it is a pretty good definition of reality, which is not science. It is therefore not included in the definition. Ipso facto, Graywolf was not talking about science. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:54 AM, John Forbes wrote: That may or may not be so. But I believe Graywolf was talking about science. And to me, too, the phrase physical and natural world sounds like another way of describing reality. Anything else, like music, is in our heads. On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:18:58 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
Re: Bailing out.
Gautam Sarup wrote: Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. I have always thought that science was a *method* of study, rather than an object of study.
Re: Bailing out.
As I said... I really don't care that much about philosophy. But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. Science at one time had the definition of being the search for truth ... This was true in the Middle Ages when the Church controlled all higher institutions of learning in Europe and the search for knowledge was akin to the study of God's Truth. That is no longer the definition of science, the modern definition of science dates from 1933. Science and Truth are not related other than semantically. Truth, Reality, and similar concepts are part of Philosophy: --- philosophy noun ( pl. -phies) the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. - a set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it : a clash of rival socialist philosophies. - the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience : the philosophy of science. - a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior : don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia love of wisdom. --- Science deals with systematic study of the observable world, which may or may not be true or real. Godfrey 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. Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire know. --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Wow! Your another name must be Leonard da Vinci :-). You are an artist, educated as a philosopher and know everything else all. I could be many things too but have no nerve to tell other people, who could very well be far more educated on many other things than you and me, that they are not. Glad I am educated in the humility :-). Ken
Re: Bailing out.
What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for philosophy/religion/psychology. After all, reality as we know it what our brains create; what I see is the picture the brain makes from those little impulses coming from my eyes. I assume that it has some relation to what's really out there or I'd be dead by now. Other than that, who knows? Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/29/2006 2:04:28 PM Gautam Sarup wrote: Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. I have always thought that science was a *method* of study, rather than an object of study.
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for philosophy/religion/psychology. After all, reality as we know it what our brains create; what I see is the picture the brain makes from those little impulses coming from my eyes. I assume that it has some relation to what's really out there or I'd be dead by now. Other than that, who knows? The guy's a prof at some second rate American college and he thinks he can tell us about science? Yeah, right! g cheers, frank ps: seriously, what do you teach again, Steve? I know it's a science of some sort... -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1+1 will always yield 2, no matter what. For Kant, basic arithmetic/mathematics was foundational and all else built on this principle. But unfortunately Kant couldn't bring these principles to reality. It was all theory. (In Star Trek the Vulcan principle of pure logic is akin to this.) Hegel brought these principles to practical implementation. His view concluded that the higher values were those that brought about a better (more pleasant/more stable) human existence. The unfortunate result is that we've not reached any concensus on the implementation of these principles. The result has been widely varying views as to what can and should be sacrificed to obtain this level of human existence. That's the fundamental weakness of Kant's arguments -- it's not specific enough to implement. It's a system that's so open-ended that any derived system, consistent within itself, can meet his criteria. So from Kant and Hegel we got Hitler, Marx and Nietzsche. And humanity has suffered greatly. So much for pure logic. Collin KC8TKA http://www.brendemuehl.net
Re: Bailing out.
It's the journey of study that is stimulated by your obvious and healthy doubt. In many cases, garbage is that generated by ones lack of acceptance. Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said... I really don't care that much about philosophy. But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. Science at one time had the definition of being the search for truth ... This was true in the Middle Ages when the Church controlled all higher institutions of learning in Europe and the search for knowledge was akin to the study of God's Truth. That is no longer the definition of science, the modern definition of science dates from 1933. Science and Truth are not related other than semantically. Truth, Reality, and similar concepts are part of Philosophy: --- philosophy noun ( pl. -phies) the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. - a set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it : a clash of rival socialist philosophies. - the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience : the philosophy of science. - a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior : don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia love of wisdom. --- Science deals with systematic study of the observable world, which may or may not be true or real. Godfrey 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. Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire know. --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for philosophy/religion/psychology. After all, reality as we know it what our brains create; what I see is the picture the brain makes from those little impulses coming from my eyes. I assume that it has some relation to what's really out there or I'd be dead by now. Other than that, who knows? BTW, I'm in the middle of Looking for Spinoza by Antonio Damasio, a neurologist, and his description of the processes involved in us perceiving objects is almost exactly as you describe it. Perhaps you do know what you're talking about after all... LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Jack Davis wrote: It's the journey of study that is stimulated by your obvious and healthy doubt. In many cases, garbage is that generated by ones lack of acceptance. In that case I have several large plastic bags with twisty-ties on them I would like to ask you to accept as a gift. Kindly forward your address off-list. Tom C. :-)
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1+1 will always yield 2, no matter what. For Kant, basic arithmetic/mathematics was foundational and all else built on this principle. But unfortunately Kant couldn't bring these principles to reality. It was all theory. (In Star Trek the Vulcan principle of pure logic is akin to this.) Hegel brought these principles to practical implementation. His view concluded that the higher values were those that brought about a better (more pleasant/more stable) human existence. The unfortunate result is that we've not reached any concensus on the implementation of these principles. The result has been widely varying views as to what can and should be sacrificed to obtain this level of human existence. That's the fundamental weakness of Kant's arguments -- it's not specific enough to implement. It's a system that's so open-ended that any derived system, consistent within itself, can meet his criteria. So from Kant and Hegel we got Hitler, Marx and Nietzsche. And humanity has suffered greatly. So much for pure logic. Kant is responsible for Hitler and his ilk? That's what you seem to be saying, so correct me if I've misinterpreted you. If that's what you're saying, that's one of the most wrong-headed and irresponsible statements I've seen in a long time! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Mark, But no method can be separated ultimately from the objects it applies to. That's implicit and doesn't need to be stated. For instance, there is a method of taking a bath - apply water, apply soap, wash off. It would not make sense to talk of the method of having a bath while denying that bodies, soap and water and non-existent or their existence is debatable. Cheers, Gautam On 3/29/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Sarup wrote: Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. I have always thought that science was a *method* of study, rather than an object of study.
Re: Bailing out.
Collin, That's a fantastic observation. I would go further and state that mankind has benefited greatly in Aristolelian eras. Cheers, Gautam On 3/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1+1 will always yield 2, no matter what. For Kant, basic arithmetic/mathematics was foundational and all else built on this principle. But unfortunately Kant couldn't bring these principles to reality. It was all theory. (In Star Trek the Vulcan principle of pure logic is akin to this.) Hegel brought these principles to practical implementation. His view concluded that the higher values were those that brought about a better (more pleasant/more stable) human existence. The unfortunate result is that we've not reached any concensus on the implementation of these principles. The result has been widely varying views as to what can and should be sacrificed to obtain this level of human existence. That's the fundamental weakness of Kant's arguments -- it's not specific enough to implement. It's a system that's so open-ended that any derived system, consistent within itself, can meet his criteria. So from Kant and Hegel we got Hitler, Marx and Nietzsche. And humanity has suffered greatly. So much for pure logic. Collin KC8TKA http://www.brendemuehl.net
Re: Bailing out.
Doesn't mean he's wrong! On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Godfrey Oh? And when did he so claim? keith whaley On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey, Physical and natural automatically implies real. The unreal is neither physical nor natural. Gautam On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire 'know.' --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Gautam Sarup wrote: I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. On 3/29/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Science today studies much that isn't real. That's a 19th century definition.
Re: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. That deserves a drumroll and flourish of trumpets! Bob I question your use of the word deserves. keith
Re: Bailing out.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:08:16 +0100, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1+1 will always yield 2, no matter what. For Kant, basic arithmetic/mathematics was foundational and all else built on this principle. But unfortunately Kant couldn't bring these principles to reality. It was all theory. (In Star Trek the Vulcan principle of pure logic is akin to this.) Hegel brought these principles to practical implementation. His view concluded that the higher values were those that brought about a better (more pleasant/more stable) human existence. The unfortunate result is that we've not reached any concensus on the implementation of these principles. The result has been widely varying views as to what can and should be sacrificed to obtain this level of human existence. That's the fundamental weakness of Kant's arguments -- it's not specific enough to implement. It's a system that's so open-ended that any derived system, consistent within itself, can meet his criteria. So from Kant and Hegel we got Hitler, Marx and Nietzsche. And humanity has suffered greatly. So much for pure logic. Kant is responsible for Hitler and his ilk? That's what you seem to be saying, so correct me if I've misinterpreted you. You probably got it right, Frank. Colin has his own versions of history, philosophy and reality. John If that's what you're saying, that's one of the most wrong-headed and irresponsible statements I've seen in a long time! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Bailing out.
K.Takeshita wrote: On 3/29/06 1:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Wow! Your another name must be Leonard da Vinci :-). You are an artist, educated as a philosopher and know everything else all. I could be many things too but have no nerve to tell other people, who could very well be far more educated on many other things than you and me, that they are not. Glad I am educated in the humility :-). Ken That makes you sort of a rare bird around here, Ken. keith
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Gautam Sarup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey, Physical and natural automatically implies real. The unreal is neither physical nor natural. I think that those that believe in God would say that He's real, but He certainly is neither physical nor is He natural (indeed, He's supernatural). -frank the non-believer -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net That makes you sort of a rare bird around here, Ken. keith Well... he has the name for it. :-) Tom C.
Re: Bailing out.
Actually, I already 'lacked to accept' a bunch of stuff that was just picked up.(garbage day) A part of it consisted of some slides/negs, artifacts of the past 50+ years. I'll be shoveling at this garbage pile for a long while, if I last it out. I'm certain my heirs are wishing me well. Difficult thing to bring oneself to. (Especially since I'll be famous one day). :~/ Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: It's the journey of study that is stimulated by your obvious and healthy doubt. In many cases, garbage is that generated by ones lack of acceptance. In that case I have several large plastic bags with twisty-ties on them I would like to ask you to accept as a gift. Kindly forward your address off-list. Tom C. :-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
Oh well, so we can conclude that logic, like any other human inventions (like religion .-), can be harmful in the wrong hands. There´s a popular phrase in Norway saying something like: When the starting point is most wrong, the outcome is most original. (Sorry about the bad translation, even the original Norwegian rime isn ´t very good .-) DagT Den 29. mar. 2006 kl. 21.38 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Modern philosophy, since the Enlightenment, has been based on Kant's view of reality, with one of the first being that certain valuations transcend existence and exist in principle apart from all else. 1 +1 will always yield 2, no matter what. For Kant, basic arithmetic/ mathematics was foundational and all else built on this principle. But unfortunately Kant couldn't bring these principles to reality. It was all theory. (In Star Trek the Vulcan principle of pure logic is akin to this.) Hegel brought these principles to practical implementation. His view concluded that the higher values were those that brought about a better (more pleasant/more stable) human existence. The unfortunate result is that we've not reached any concensus on the implementation of these principles. The result has been widely varying views as to what can and should be sacrificed to obtain this level of human existence. That's the fundamental weakness of Kant's arguments -- it's not specific enough to implement. It's a system that's so open-ended that any derived system, consistent within itself, can meet his criteria. So from Kant and Hegel we got Hitler, Marx and Nietzsche. And humanity has suffered greatly. So much for pure logic. Collin KC8TKA http://www.brendemuehl.net
Re: Bailing out.
frank theriault wrote: On 3/29/06, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What he said. The natural sciences concern themselves with things that can be observed or theories that can be verified empirically. The extent to which those things overlap with REALITY is a question for philosophy/religion/psychology. After all, reality as we know it what our brains create; what I see is the picture the brain makes from those little impulses coming from my eyes. I assume that it has some relation to what's really out there or I'd be dead by now. Other than that, who knows? The guy's a prof at some second rate American college and he thinks he can tell us about science? Yeah, right! g That's Department Chairman to you, pal! ps: seriously, what do you teach again, Steve? I know it's a science of some sort... Alchemy! ;-)
Re: Bailing out.
My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Tom C wrote: But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science.
Re: Bailing out.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:08:16 -0500 From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Kant is responsible for Hitler and his ilk? That's what you seem to be saying, so correct me if I've misinterpreted you. If that's what you're saying, that's one of the most wrong-headed and irresponsible statements I've seen in a long time! cheers, frank It's by inheritence. Hitler, before coming to power, declared himself a Marxist, but that the Communists were doing things wrong something which he was going to correct. Hitler was not following Kant directly but implementing what he understood from Marx. Along with his own megalomania, his basic socialism (Fascism was Musolini's system, not Hitler's) has its historical basis in Marx-Hegel-Kant. Yes, it's two steps away, but still the influence is historically present. And if you want leave out Hitler and just go with Hegel/Marx/Nietzsche, that's certainly enough to indict this teaching for the fruit it has plainly and significantly produced through Lenin/Stalin/Khmer Rouge. Collin KC8TKA
Re: Bailing out.
If there exists one thing which is real and is also neither physical nor natural, then your assertion is incorrect. Is mathematics not real? Please demonstrate with a proof. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Gautam Sarup wrote: Physical and natural automatically implies real. The unreal is neither physical nor natural.
Re: Bailing out.
I'm sure TomC can comment quite well on this himself but on this I agree with him. Too much of modern knowledge is just back-space. Cheers, Gautam On 3/29/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Tom C wrote: But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science.
Re: Bailing out.
The fact is you don't know what I know about philosophy or science. So to base your statement or opinion on one statement I made is rather short-sighted, don't you think? You don't think that there's a whole realm of what I know that you're not privy to... or likewise don't know? The fact that I didn't express my thoughts with dictionary precision (remember words frequently have numerous related definitions) is rather irrelevant. The point is you should not assume to know what I've studied or not studied. Since scientists and philosophers themselves, frequently disagree in earnest about where the philosophical/scientific lines meet and/or cross over each other, I think I'm in at least that good of company. 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 13:20:52 -0800 My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Tom C wrote: But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science.
Re: Bailing out.
Well, here we go again. The world according to Godfrey! Anyone who doesn't agree with him is an ass. I am not educated at all, I dropped out of school in the tenth grade. What is your excuse? I suggest you get some theropy for your personality disorders, Godfrey. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
Re: Bailing out.
I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If you say it it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially if you did it a long time ago, it is philosophy. BTW my Meanderings webpages are mostly philosophical. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: As I said... I really don't care that much about philosophy. But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. Science at one time had the definition of being the search for truth ... This was true in the Middle Ages when the Church controlled all higher institutions of learning in Europe and the search for knowledge was akin to the study of God's Truth. That is no longer the definition of science, the modern definition of science dates from 1933. Science and Truth are not related other than semantically. Truth, Reality, and similar concepts are part of Philosophy: --- philosophy noun ( pl. -phies) the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. - a set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it : a clash of rival socialist philosophies. - the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience : the philosophy of science. - a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior : don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia ‘love of wisdom.’ --- Science deals with systematic study of the observable world, which may or may not be true or real. Godfrey 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. Science is defined to be: --- science: noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. - a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. - a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. - archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’ --- Note that this definition has no mention of the words real or reality in it. Notions of reality are part of philosophy (typically metaphysics and epistemology), not science. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest you get some theropy for your personality disorders, Godfrey. Therapy? Isn't that what this list is for? LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Your comments are not relevant to the truth or falsity of the statement I made. You are making inferences based upon it that are neither what it says nor implies. I have made no assumptions about your studies. I have stated a fact based upon your statements and my own knowledge of the subject areas mentioned that is independent of what you have studied or know. If you want to play philosopher and state opinions about philosophy, you have to learn how to read and respond with precision rather than interpret words loosely. Otherwise, you are just spouting the same bullshit that you have stated you despise. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Tom C wrote: The fact is you don't know what I know about philosophy or science. So to base your statement or opinion on one statement I made is rather short-sighted, don't you think? You don't think that there's a whole realm of what I know that you're not privy to... or likewise don't know? The fact that I didn't express my thoughts with dictionary precision (remember words frequently have numerous related definitions) is rather irrelevant. The point is you should not assume to know what I've studied or not studied. Since scientists and philosophers themselves, frequently disagree in earnest about where the philosophical/scientific lines meet and/ or cross over each other, I think I'm in at least that good of company. 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 13:20:52 -0800 My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Tom C wrote: But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science.
Re: Bailing out.
Hey, I can't claim ignorance and spell well in the same paragraph. The would not be self-consistent. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest you get some theropy for your personality disorders, Godfrey. Therapy? Isn't that what this list is for? LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Bailing out. My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. Thats twice in as many days you have made yourself to look like a pompous ass. Are you trying to prove it scientifically or philosophically. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06 4:38 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not educated at all, I dropped out of school in the tenth grade. Breathing some fresh air here. You certainly seem to have a lot of practical knowledge about many things in the real world which was obviously earned by yourself and became part of you, not superficial one, having to consult to with dictionary and internet etc to sustain the debate. My respect, sir. Ken
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: Gautam Sarup Subject: Re: Bailing out. I'd say that if the mystics want to change the definition of science they can't. Science is still (and always will be) the study of reality. The study of non-reality if such a thing is possible will always be mysticism. There is no logical need to morph one into the other. True enough, but it does give the armchair philosophers something to waste our time with when they come down from their acid trips. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
The spell it out for since I obviously have trouble uinderstanding your precise diction. 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 13:52:03 -0800 Your comments are not relevant to the truth or falsity of the statement I made. You are making inferences based upon it that are neither what it says nor implies. I have made no assumptions about your studies. I have stated a fact based upon your statements and my own knowledge of the subject areas mentioned that is independent of what you have studied or know. If you want to play philosopher and state opinions about philosophy, you have to learn how to read and respond with precision rather than interpret words loosely. Otherwise, you are just spouting the same bullshit that you have stated you despise. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Tom C wrote: The fact is you don't know what I know about philosophy or science. So to base your statement or opinion on one statement I made is rather short-sighted, don't you think? You don't think that there's a whole realm of what I know that you're not privy to... or likewise don't know? The fact that I didn't express my thoughts with dictionary precision (remember words frequently have numerous related definitions) is rather irrelevant. The point is you should not assume to know what I've studied or not studied. Since scientists and philosophers themselves, frequently disagree in earnest about where the philosophical/scientific lines meet and/ or cross over each other, I think I'm in at least that good of company. 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 13:20:52 -0800 My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Tom C wrote: But for you to make a blanket statement regarding you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science which really means you don't know much, is rather ludicrous based on how much we really know of each other. I find philosophy, especially as popularly taught is all too frequently someone else's own random mental meanderings with no connection to objective truth. I can come up with my own postulations just as easily and they would have equal validity. Too much of what is being taught as wisdom and knowledge is simply either supposition or garbage. 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 10:52:26 -0800 With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science.
Re: Bailing out.
Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that you are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:38 PM, graywolf wrote: Well, here we go again. The world according to Godfrey! Anyone who doesn't agree with him is an ass. I am not educated at all, I dropped out of school in the tenth grade. What is your excuse? I suggest you get some theropy for your personality disorders, Godfrey. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: If that is your considered opinion, you are not well-educated in the study of Philosophy. Godfrey On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, graywolf wrote: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Sounds like a pretty good defination of reality to me.
Re: Bailing out.
On 29 Mar 2006 at 13:59, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that you are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully. Empathy isn't one of your strong points is it? :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Bailing out.
Graywolf wrote: I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If you say it it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially if you did it a long time ago, it is philosophy. That's pretty much the way I see it. And if you parrot it in front of a classroom you're a philosophy teacher, and if you're a student and you say it you're a philosopher. Tom C.
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If you say it it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially if you did it a long time ago, it is philosophy. BTW my Meanderings webpages are mostly philosophical. I think you're on to the popular definition of the word, Tom. There seems to be an idea out there that equates philosophy with sophistry or rhetoric or debate or some such thing. In fact, I'd agree that on a personal level, philosophy can be equated with world view, doctine, personal ethics or set of personal beliefs. However, philosophy is also an academic pursuit, a structured and rational study of such concepts as ethics, reality, existence, our place in the world. Despite what some have said here, there can be overlap between science and some types of philosophy, especially logical positivism. As an academic pursuit, it's certainly more than a study of opinions; I wouldn't dismiss it in terms of if you write it in a thick book it's philosophy. To my mind, that would dismiss the work of some of the greatest thinkers the world has seen. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
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
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip especially logical positivism. snip I forgot to mention that logical positivism is rooted in formal logic and mathematics. That's hardly opinion or parroting in front of a classroom. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Nothing like experience to well educate someone. Education is only only of real value when it's applied in a practical manner. Waving it around like a cheerleader's baton, OTOH, it might come down and hit you on the top of the head. Tom C. (drosophilar) From: K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Bailing out. Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:56:52 -0500 On 3/29/06 4:38 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not educated at all, I dropped out of school in the tenth grade. Breathing some fresh air here. You certainly seem to have a lot of practical knowledge about many things in the real world which was obviously earned by yourself and became part of you, not superficial one, having to consult to with dictionary and internet etc to sustain the debate. My respect, sir. Ken
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: Bailing out. As an academic pursuit, it's certainly more than a study of opinions; I wouldn't dismiss it in terms of if you write it in a thick book it's philosophy. To my mind, that would dismiss the work of some of the greatest thinkers the world has seen. Some of those great thinkers deserve to have their work dismissed. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:17 PM, frank theriault wrote: On 3/29/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have always equated philosophy with the study of opinions. If you say it it is an opinion; if you write it in a thick book, especially if you did it a long time ago, it is philosophy. BTW my Meanderings webpages are mostly philosophical. I think you're on to the popular definition of the word, Tom. There seems to be an idea out there that equates philosophy with sophistry or rhetoric or debate or some such thing. In fact, I'd agree that on a personal level, philosophy can be equated with world view, doctine, personal ethics or set of personal beliefs. However, philosophy is also an academic pursuit, a structured and rational study of such concepts as ethics, reality, existence, our place in the world. Despite what some have said here, there can be overlap between science and some types of philosophy, especially logical positivism. As an academic pursuit, it's certainly more than a study of opinions; I wouldn't dismiss it in terms of if you write it in a thick book it's philosophy. To my mind, that would dismiss the work of some of the greatest thinkers the world has seen. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson Frank! Good job! I agree with you. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
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
RE: Bailing out.
This is not a response to any specific post. I am reading this thread, shaking my head. Frankly, I have heard better debates in kindergarten, and that's a non philosophic observation ;-) What is going on here? What is the point in insulting each other? Tim (the party breaker, and social worker)
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of those great thinkers deserve to have their work dismissed. I didn't say that every philosopher is or was a great thinker. I said (or at least implied) that ~some~ great thinkers were and are philosophers. Of course some philosophers were blithering idiots - Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism immediately come to mind. I would hesitate to say, however, that Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Wittgenstein, Russell, Arendt, Sartre, Camus (my personal fave) ought to have their work dismissed. I may disagree with some of them, I may not understand some of them g, but what they've said is still worthy of consideration, IMHO. cheers, frank, who really knows nothing about philosophy or philosophers... -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Tom C wrote: 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. So you choose not to clarify what point you were trying to make? You *are* a pop philosopher! ;-) People who accepted your statements as true and meaningful more than likely did not understand them, although they think they did just as you think they actually are meaningful and true. In case you were unaware, the statement Nothing unreal exists is cited in parody of pop philosophers by Douglas Adams in his book, The Hitchhikers' Guide To The Galaxy. Wonderful bit of comedy and amusement... Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/29/06, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a response to any specific post. I am reading this thread, shaking my head. Frankly, I have heard better debates in kindergarten, and that's a non philosophic observation ;-) What is going on here? What is the point in insulting each other? Tim (the party breaker, and social worker) Well you've done it now, Tim. I'm picking up my toys and going home!! (actually, I'm leaving work in about 10 minutes, so won't be near a computer until tomorrow g) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yes, here we go again. Ad hominem attacks are a signal to me that you are out of ideas on how to respond meaningfully. Godfrey You may wish to seek out a definition of ad hominem. What Graywolf did was insult you. There's a difference. You, however, are guilty of an ad hominem attack when you said to Tom C.: With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. By pointing out what you perceived to be Tom's educational deficiencies, you slipped from a discussion of the subject to a suggestion that Tom was not qualified to make his assertions. That is a textbook example of ad hominem, in that Tom's level of education has no bearing on the veracity of his assertions. Doug who thinks ad hominem claims are thrown about entirely too often.
Re: Bailing out.
My statement, quoted below, was With these statements, you demonstrate little study of Philosophy or Science. The statement is true, regardless of your opinions about the subject. When people try to end the debate abruptly like this irrational statement and stuck to it, it is most likely the indication that he ran out of resources off his superficial knowledge base, and become afraid of being beaten. It is not a fair attempt to shutdown the discussion, but this became a real OT anyway, and I am really bailing out :-). Ken
Re: Bailing out.
I've read the book but don't remember the instance you mention. Actually I was quoting Spock on Star Trek IV. But that doesn't make me a pop philosopher. I don't profess to be one. 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 14:49:43 -0800 On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Tom C wrote: 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. So you choose not to clarify what point you were trying to make? You *are* a pop philosopher! ;-) People who accepted your statements as true and meaningful more than likely did not understand them, although they think they did just as you think they actually are meaningful and true. In case you were unaware, the statement Nothing unreal exists is cited in parody of pop philosophers by Douglas Adams in his book, The Hitchhikers' Guide To The Galaxy. Wonderful bit of comedy and amusement... Godfrey
