Salutatio Relatif!
22-Mar-98, Relatif Tuinn wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Time and Again        1/2
 RT>>> I'm not asking you to post the entire book. Just start with his
 RT>>> first point or his main point and we'll discuss it from there
 RM>> Refuse to read it, if you wish.  I refuse to do your research for
 RM>> you.
 RT> Research? I thought you said you'd read the book?
Research involves more than reading one book.
 RM>>>> Then you may wish to read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"
 RM>>>> to get the other side of the story.
 RT>>> Read it. As to the "other side of the story" I think you must be
 RT>>> jesting. Hawkings gives a non-technical overview of the Universe
 RT>>> and the scientific principles theorized (and evidenced) to be
 RT>>> behind everyday existence. You'd have to read a lot more than
 RT>>> one book to understand the subject of cosmology with any real
 RT>>> depth
 RM>> Hawking ALSO give a fundamentalist's point of view of the BB
 RM>> theory, "God" this and "God" that, why not just cut the crap
 RM>> about a mythical unprovable being and do the damned science?
 RT> I'm going to go out and get another copy of this book as I can't
 RT> find mine. Which page does he state this on, because I don't
 RT> remember it myself (and no I'm not calling you a liar I simply
 RT> don't remember)
Last paragraph of Carl Sagan's intro:
"This is also a book about God... or perhaps the absence of God.  The word
God fills these pages."
[...]
"Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of
God."
[I am not going to re-read the book again to find every reference to "God",
but I will zap you ahead to page 175, last paragraph.]
"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be
understandable in broad principle by everyone. not just a few scientists.
Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be
able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
the universe exist.  If we find the answer to that, it would be the
untimate triumph of human reason - :*for then we would know the mind of
God.*:"
["A brief History of Time", by Stephen Hawking]
 RM>>>> Here is a tip, be critical of BOTH.
 RT>>> I'm critical of everything. Here's a tip for you: read more than
 RT>>> one book on a subject before you think you're an authority
 RM>> I have read many books on the BB theory.  On top of that, you
 RM>> will have  to show me now where I stated I was an "authority" on
 RM>> the BB theory. Can't do it, can you?
 RT> In order to refute the BB theory one would have to understand the
 RT> concepts and evidence behind it. As you think you are in a
 RT> position to refute the BB theory I therefore conclude that you
 RT> must be an authority on it.
So anyone who understands the concepts of any subject is suddenly an
authority on said subject?  Is that how you are defining "authority"?
I note that you mentioned (specifically) "concepts" not the math behind the
theory.  An astronomical journal contains within it a whole lot of
mathematics.  I am no mathematician, therfore I stated that I do not
understand those journals.  Books like "The Brief History of Time" and "The
Big Bang Never Happened" are not loaded with such mathematics, but they are
loaded with the concepts behind the theories they attempt to describe.  If
you wish to debate the math, forget it.
Also, I still do not view myself as an "authority" on cosmology, that word,
"authority" bears much connotative meaning that I cannot accept as a
description of myself.  I understand many concepts (all self taught,
because some of us cannot afford to fork out the thousands of dollars a
year to get formal education).  I may miss some concepts along the way, but
that is all a part of the self guided discovery of the universe upon which
I had embarked more then ten years ago.
I am a regular reader of "Astronomy" (the magazine).  I get some good info
from that publication.  I am an off and on reader of "Scientific American",
I get some useful info from that one too.  I also read what ever other
books on cosmology I can get my hands on.
 RM>> Know why?  Because you are a lover of the "strawman" argument.
 RM>> Not even a nice try,... you got to do a LOT better then that
 RT> On the contrary, this is no strawman and in direct relevance to
 RT> your ability to refute a complex theory such as the BB. As I state
 RT> above, one has to be well versed in the subject before one is in a
 RT> position to refute it. You're not in that position
NOT an inability.  A refusal to play your game of "you are stupid and I am
smart, so that gives me the right to hound you" bullshit.  I don't like it.
 KK>>>>>>> Yeah, but it's also done by human beings, who sometimes fall
 KK>>>>>>> in love with hypotheses.  One of the great virtues of
 KK>>>>>>> scientific methodology is that science can correct itself.
 RM>>>>>> Right, and my view is that they are not FOLLOWING the
 RM>>>>>> scientific method.
 RT>>>>> Who's "they"? Big Bangers?
 RM>>>> That is what I think.
 RT>>> What evidence have you of your assertion? What is the scientific
 RT>>> method?
Do note that I said that that is what _I_ think, and in a "PHILOSOPHICAL"
forum that is ALL you need.  In here, one does not have to argue scientific
evidence in order to disagree with the method in which that "evidence" is
obtained.  I have the RIGHT to disagree with a concept or idea, and I do
not need to be an "authority" on the topic.
 RM>> If you do not know what the scientific method is, then this
 RM>> conversation (I use the term lightly) is ended. Talk about
 RM>> ignorance.
 RT> Strawman argument.
No...
 RT> What is the scientific method?
Implying the lack of a certain knowledge.  Thus my statement is not a
"strawman", but quite valid from the evidence of your question of
wanting to know what the "scientific method" is.
 RT> You've carefully avoided giving any evidence
 RT> for your assertion that BB theorists are not using the scientific
 RT> method
Right, because I do not like the manner in which you question.
 RT> Please provide evidence of your assertion.
Please stop hounding, and I may.
 RT>>>>> I think you should read up on it a bit before you start saying
 RT>>>>> scientists are deliberately ignoring things, or at least, post
 RT>>>>> what you think they are ignoring
 RM>>>> I have read up on it a lot.
 RT>>> Which contradicts what you say below (which I have reproduced
 RT>>> here)... [ start quote ]
 KK>>>>>>> I don't read physics journals because I have no idea what
 KK>>>>>>> they're saying,
 RM>>>>>> Ditto here, man.
 RT>>> [ end quote ] You agree here with KK that you don't read physics
 RT>>> journals because you have no idea what they are saying
Due to the over abundance of the math therein.
 RM>> Physics Journals are not written the same as those books
 RM>> available to the common people.
 RT> And because you've read a couple of popular science books you
 RT> think you're in a position to refute the BB theory?
I have read more then a couple.  And I do have a right to question that
which seems suspicious to ME.  I say again, this is a "PHILOSOPHICAL"
forum, not a scientific one.  If you want to hound someone you feel
superior to go to a science based echo, because in HERE we are ALL
equal, some much more annoying than others, some quite hostile, but all
no less equal.  So you can stop you ego posturing because it simply
makes you look like a jerk.
 RT> As I state
 RT> above, you're not an authority despite your wish to believe that
 RT> you are. As you're not an authority then you're in no position to
 RT> offer valid evidence to support your assertion
 RT>>> Why do I think you're a liar Richard?
 RM>> Because you just want to be as offensive as possible.  I
 RM>> understand, really I do.  You feel you are inadequate so you must
 RM>> be unduly aggressive to feel like a big shot.  It's not like I
 RM>> have NEVER run into your kind before.
 RT> ROTFL. "your kind". ROTFL. What you mean is that you get upset by
 RT> people who spot your inconsistencies and bar no holds in telling
 RT> you so
No, what I MEAN is that I do not like how you debate/discuss.  You are
entirely too pushy, unnecessarily insulting, and you have this feeling
of superiority over my personality.  It is crap, plain and simple and
you will get nothing out of me that way.
 RT>>>>> Have you read about the double-slit experiment? It DEFIES
 RT>>>>> logic.
 RM>>>> I have a vague recollection of it.
 RT>>> IOW's, you've never heard of it.
So, instead of detailing it to me so that we could both find out if I
really have or have not, you decide to conclude, out of your own feeling
of superiority, that I have not heard of it.  Seems to me that you never
really wanted to know if I have heard of the "double slit" experiment,
but wanted more fuel for your hounding.  Forget it, you will get NOTHING
out of me with that attitude.
 RM>> Cut the garbage and converse peacefully with me or you will have
 RM>> no more conversation with me.  I prefer ADULT people to converse
 RM>> with, not children.
 RT> I take that as an admission that you've never read the book as I
 RT> asserted. You have offered no evidence to the contrary
_I_ think you have nothing at all to offer a philosophical forum, but
overbearing, egotistical trash.
 RM>>>> Of course, for I am a human, I have a free mind, and I am not
 RM>>>> afraid to use it.
 RT>>> But you have already admitted that you don't understand physics.
 RM>> Strawman argument, it will be ignored.
 RT> Not a strawman at all. As stated above, one has to be knowledgable
 RT> of a subject before one is in a position to refute it. You've
 RT> clearly stated an agreement that you do not understand physics
 RT> journals - a prerequisite to understanding physics that you admit
 RT> you do not possess
Do you know who reads physics journals?
 RT> Your assertion that BB theorists are incorrect and/or are not
 RT> using the scientific method is therefore an argumentum ad
 RT> ignoratum
OH, (LOL!) so in order to look even more superior to me you use latin?
THAT's rich.
 RM>>>> If you wish to just accept what is told to you without any
 RM>>>> skepticism at all, that is your choice, but do not expect me to
 RM>>>> have the same habit.
 RT>>> I'm not expecting you to do anything. Your life is your choice.
 RT>>> All I would like you to do is outline why you think the Big Bang
 RT>>> theory is incorrect as you have made that assertion. You do have
 RT>>> a basis for your refutation don't you
 RM>> To bad you chose the aggressive mode to communicate.  You do not
 RM>> interest me, nor does your hounding.  Bye.
 RT> IOW's you've been caught out at the first hurdle.
No, meaning you are being a jerk. and I refuse to give a jerk what
he/she asks for.  _I_ thought it was simple to understand that this is
what I meant.
PS:
All you have to do is ask the kind people here if I have provided
evidence and arguments against the BB theory in the past.  I have
debated this topic many times here and I have been here a looooong time.
I have debated this topic with different people and I can only think of
one other here (who I have twitted) who I have refused to provide the
evidence and arguments against the BB theory, and that is simply because
the person is a jerk and I refuse to deal with jerks.  So if you cannot
be civil or treat me like the equal I am, then you might as well not
reply to me anymore.
NOTE:
I gave you what you asked for below, ONLY because the request was more 
civil.  See what one can accomplish when one is not being a jerk?  Do
you understand now what I want in a conversation?
 RT> I'm going to go out and get another copy of this book as I can't
 RT> find mine. Which page does he state this on, because I don't
 RT> remember it myself (and no I'm not calling you a liar I simply
 RT> don't remember)
I do not ask for an apology, only peaceful conversation.
It is something for you to think about before you send your reply to 
this message.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------