• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

B Theory of time

With deepest respect and genuine (no, REALLY) LOVE for ALL:

You really think I'm not aware of the fact that people's belief that the Earth wasn't moving was proved wrong by science?!

You can't be "aware" of something that isn't true.

Motion is relative. Einstein taught us that the motionlessness of the earth is optional, not "wrong."
You are pushing Einstein much, much further than relativity. Yes, motion is relative in the sense that, if you have two objects in space moving apart or toward each other, either can be assumed as a reference in which case the other will be seen as moving. In effect everything in the universe is moving with respect to everything else.

However, if you push this idea to the point of assuming an observer's position on Earth is a universal inertial reference frame then you need to invent a hell of a lot of new physics (not relativity) to explain observations. You now need a new force to explain a star a hundred LY away moving much faster than the speed of light in its daily orbit around the earth (maybe very swift angels shoving that sucker). Coreolous effects would also need another new force (or angels) to explain. There are many other observed effects that would need the invention of new forces (or a hell of a lot of very busy angels) to explain if an observer's position on Earth is assumed as a universal inertial reference frame which is how it feels and what the geocentric universe model assumed.

Perhaps science, as Sub has told me, is not the only discipline qualified to speak about such matters?

Certainly, or as certain as we can be, philosophers are equipped to deal with the most profound ideas: I offer you Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, etc. The list would require several pages, even in small print, and that's not even touching on the GREAT minds in Arabia, (Islam) India, Burma, China, Japan, and especially the South Sea islands, where child geniuses are popping up in spades:

I will provide videos of very young girls who are on par with Mozart, if you haven't seen them, not to mention wickedly bright guitarists and musicians who play so well, some of them without any training at all, that it's absolutely fuc.k.ing baffling. There are at least two excellent guitarists from those islands that play left-handed, with the strings strung upside down (fat E string closest to the floor), like blues legend Albert Collins, and several other big names, like Coco Montoya, and the guitarist who has recently played with Roger Waters. That's the way [uh-huh uh huh] I learned to play, without a single lesson, all by ear, knowing NADA about scales, or formal notation.

Did y'all, or anyone, know that Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull

(yeah I know that man gets lots of hate and stick [stole 'stick' from Subsie] has no grasp at all of formal musical notation? And yet, he has perfect pitch - as Dee Palmer, formerly David Palmer, of London's Royal Academy of music attests to, and who was a member of Tull for a few years and transcribed a lot of Mr. Anderson's amazing compositions into formal notation - )​

composes everything in his head? UM would say mind, and so would I, and then, a few peeps here would get their knickers in a twist.

Take Mozart. "It's all in here (poking at his head), the rest is scribbling..." - dynamite quote from the film Amadeus. And reliable.

Y'all can read up on Salieri if you'd like. He was jealous, at first, but at great length, and especially at the end of his life, he at least respected Mozart, and especially Mozart's in-FOOOking'-credible music. In my unschooled and yet, perhaps not so humble opinion, Salieri was a fine composer, but nowhere near Mozart, not even when Wolfie was a child. He knew it.

Listen to the 13th Symphony. A perfect example of Mozart's genius. Some credit the work to others, like Haydn, or even Michael Haydn, Joseph's lesser known but equally talented brother; but I believe it to be Mozart's, because I've heard both Haydns — and their work, although wonderful, does not rise IMhO to the level of Mozart's, not even up to Wolfie's early compositions.

"Too many notes. Um-hm. Too many notes." - a royal personage with NO entitlement to judge the work of a genius - at which point young Wolfie opens a can of serious whoop ass. :joy:
 
Last edited:
Aristotle was an animist, Aquinas was obese who liked wine too much, and Augustine thought self flagellation was good for the soul. Lord give me chastity, but not yet.

Each in turn built on the past. Before the rise of Europe Persia and Arabia was the place to be for science. India, North Africa, Mid East, China and Asia all fed into science today. Any science history text traces it.

Science is not about meaning, it is about understanding physical reality. Traditionally philosophy was in part about how best to live. The Confucian Superior Man. Life philosophy and science are two different things with different goals.
 
Aristotle was an animist, Aquinas was obese who liked wine too much, and Augustine thought self flagellation was good for the soul. Lord give me chastity, but not yet.

Each in turn built on the past. Before the rise of Europe Persia and Arabia was the place to be for science. India, North Africa, Mid East, China and Asia all fed into science today. Any science history text traces it.

Science is not about meaning, it is about understanding physical reality. Traditionally philosophy was in part about how best to live. The Confucian Superior Man. Life philosophy and science are two different things with different goals.

Okay. I know this.

Nonetheless, there are a few among us (PM me for a list) who just love to poo-poo philosophy, and philosophers.

It is to them, not those dead guys, that I address my posts.
 
You are pushing Einstein much, much further than relativity. Yes, motion is relative in the sense that, if you have two objects in space moving apart or toward each other, either can be assumed as a reference in which case the other will be seen as moving. In effect everything in the universe is moving with respect to everything else.

However, if you push this idea to the point of assuming an observer's position on Earth is a universal inertial reference frame then you need to invent a hell of a lot of new physics (not relativity) to explain observations. You now need a new force to explain a star a hundred LY away moving much faster than the speed of light in its daily orbit around the earth (maybe very swift angels shoving that sucker). Coreolous effects would also need another new force (or angels) to explain. There are many other observed effects that would need the invention of new forces (or a hell of a lot of very busy angels) to explain if an observer's position on Earth is assumed as a universal inertial reference frame which is how it feels and what the geocentric universe model assumed.

Perhaps science, as Sub has told me, is not the only discipline qualified to speak about such matters?

Certainly, or as certain as we can be, philosophers are equipped to deal with the most profound ideas: I offer you Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, etc. The list would require several pages, even in small print, and that's not even touching on the GREAT minds in Arabia, (Islam) India, Burma, China, Japan, and especially the South Sea islands, where child geniuses are popping up in spades:

I will provide videos of very young girls who are on par with Mozart, if you haven't seen them, not to mention wickedly bright guitarists and musicians who play so well, some of them without any training at all, that it's absolutely fuc.k.ing baffling. There are at least two excellent guitarists from those islands that play left-handed, with the strings strung upside down (fat E string closest to the floor), like blues legend Albert Collins, and several other big names, like Coco Montoya, and the guitarist who has recently played with Roger Waters. That's the way [uh-huh uh huh] I learned to play, without a single lesson, all by ear, knowing NADA about scales, or formal notation.

Did y'all, or anyone, know that Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull

(yeah I know that man gets lots of hate and stick [stole 'stick' from Subsie] has no grasp at all of formal musical notation? And yet, he has perfect pitch - as Dee Palmer, formerly David Palmer, of London's Royal Academy of music attests to, and who was a member of Tull for a few years and transcribed a lot of Mr. Anderson's amazing compositions into formal notation - )​

composes everything in his head? UM would say mind, and so would I, and then, a few peeps here would get their knickers in a twist.

Take Mozart. "It's all in here (poking at his head), the rest is scribbling..." - dynamite quote from the film Amadeus. And reliable.

Y'all can read up on Salieri if you'd like. He was jealous, at first, but at great length, and especially at the end of his life, he at least respected Mozart, and especially Mozart's in-FOOOking'-credible music. In my unschooled and yet, perhaps not so humble opinion, Salieri was a fine composer, but nowhere near Mozart, not even when Wolfie was a child. He knew it.

Listen to the 13th Symphony. A perfect example of Mozart's genius. Some credit the work to others, like Haydn, or even Michael Haydn, Joseph's lesser known but equally talented brother; but I believe it to be Mozart's, because I've heard both Haydns — and their work, although wonderful, does not rise IMhO to the level of Mozart's, not even up to Wolfie's early compositions.

"Too many notes. Um-hm. Too many notes." - a royal personage with NO entitlement to judge the work of a genius - at which point young Wolfie opens a can of serious whoop ass. :joy:
What exactly in my post has put a knot in your knickers? I saw nothing in the above that addressed what I posted. I was correcting a mistaken assertion of what the theory of relativity says.

Hell yes there are a hell of a lot of people that could be called genius other than in the sciences. In fact, I only know a handful of people in the history of science that I would call a genius. But it must be understood that a genius is not a genius in all aspects of human knowledge.
 
You are pushing Einstein much, much further than relativity. Yes, motion is relative in the sense that, if you have two objects in space moving apart or toward each other, either can be assumed as a reference in which case the other will be seen as moving. In effect everything in the universe is moving with respect to everything else.

However, if you push this idea to the point of assuming an observer's position on Earth is a universal inertial reference frame then you need to invent a hell of a lot of new physics (not relativity) to explain observations. You now need a new force to explain a star a hundred LY away moving much faster than the speed of light in its daily orbit around the earth (maybe very swift angels shoving that sucker). Coreolous effects would also need another new force (or angels) to explain. There are many other observed effects that would need the invention of new forces (or a hell of a lot of very busy angels) to explain if an observer's position on Earth is assumed as a universal inertial reference frame which is how it feels and what the geocentric universe model assumed.

Perhaps science, as Sub has told me, is not the only discipline qualified to speak about such matters?

Certainly, or as certain as we can be, philosophers are equipped to deal with the most profound ideas: I offer you Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, etc. The list would require several pages, even in small print, and that's not even touching on the GREAT minds in Arabia, (Islam) India, Burma, China, Japan, and especially the South Sea islands, where child geniuses are popping up in spades:

I will provide videos of very young girls who are on par with Mozart, if you haven't seen them, not to mention wickedly bright guitarists and musicians who play so well, some of them without any training at all, that it's absolutely fuc.k.ing baffling. There are at least two excellent guitarists from those islands that play left-handed, with the strings strung upside down (fat E string closest to the floor), like blues legend Albert Collins, and several other big names, like Coco Montoya, and the guitarist who has recently played with Roger Waters. That's the way [uh-huh uh huh] I learned to play, without a single lesson, all by ear, knowing NADA about scales, or formal notation.

Did y'all, or anyone, know that Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull

(yeah I know that man gets lots of hate and stick [stole 'stick' from Subsie] has no grasp at all of formal musical notation? And yet, he has perfect pitch - as Dee Palmer, formerly David Palmer, of London's Royal Academy of music attests to, and who was a member of Tull for a few years and transcribed a lot of Mr. Anderson's amazing compositions into formal notation - )​

composes everything in his head? UM would say mind, and so would I, and then, a few peeps here would get their knickers in a twist.

Take Mozart. "It's all in here (poking at his head), the rest is scribbling..." - dynamite quote from the film Amadeus. And reliable.

Y'all can read up on Salieri if you'd like. He was jealous, at first, but at great length, and especially at the end of his life, he at least respected Mozart, and especially Mozart's in-FOOOking'-credible music. In my unschooled and yet, perhaps not so humble opinion, Salieri was a fine composer, but nowhere near Mozart, not even when Wolfie was a child. He knew it.

Listen to the 13th Symphony. A perfect example of Mozart's genius. Some credit the work to others, like Haydn, or even Michael Haydn, Joseph's lesser known but equally talented brother; but I believe it to be Mozart's, because I've heard both Haydns — and their work, although wonderful, does not rise IMhO to the level of Mozart's, not even up to Wolfie's early compositions.

"Too many notes. Um-hm. Too many notes." - a royal personage with NO entitlement to judge the work of a genius - at which point young Wolfie opens a can of serious whoop ass. :joy:
What exactly in my post has put a knot in your knickers? I saw nothing in the above that addressed what I posted. I was correcting a mistaken assertion of what the theory of relativity says.

Hell yes there are a hell of a lot of people that could be called genius other than in the sciences. In fact, I only know a handful of people in the history of science that I would call a genius. But it must be understood that a genius is not a genius in all aspects of human knowledge.

Si. I know.

Sorry. I am only throwing out branches from the root. I should have opted not to use the "Reply With Quote" tab.

ETA: dammit, I did it anyway.





again!!!!
 
Last edited:
I do notn poo poo philosophers, but I do not elevate them to saint status with an air of holiness and reverence. I do poo poo philosophizers.

I read Einstein's and Ghandi's biographies. Both were human beings with idiosynchrcies and flaws.
 
I do notn poo poo philosophers, but I do not elevate them to saint status with an air of holiness and reverence. I do poo poo philosophizers.
.
Indeed, philosophy is an extremely valuable and useful tool and there are certainly some who use it to great benefit. However, just because someone thinks of themselves a "philosopher" doesn't mean that they have a clue into what they opine about. The same can be said about any field but it seems that while most fields weed out the inept the same doesn't appear to happen in philosophy - they seem to only spur never-ending "philosophical" debates.
 
I do notn poo poo philosophers, but I do not elevate them to saint status with an air of holiness and reverence. I do poo poo philosophizers.
.
Indeed, philosophy is an extremely valuable and useful tool and there are certainly some who use it to great benefit. However, just because someone thinks of themselves a "philosopher" doesn't mean that they have a clue into what they opine about. The same can be said about any field but it seems that while most fields weed out the inept the same doesn't appear to happen in philosophy - they seem to only spur never-ending "philosophical" debates.

Philosophers are not guilty of anything other people are not guilty of as well.

It's not "philosophers" who are guilty, it's the subject-matter that is just like that. Philosophy is messy and all we have to stop a debate is logic, convincing people or sweet-talking them into being convinced, or things like discrediting them or ignoring them.

If you can offer more interesting alternative you should speak out.
EB
 
I do notn poo poo philosophers, but I do not elevate them to saint status with an air of holiness and reverence. I do poo poo philosophizers.
.
Indeed, philosophy is an extremely valuable and useful tool and there are certainly some who use it to great benefit. However, just because someone thinks of themselves a "philosopher" doesn't mean that they have a clue into what they opine about. The same can be said about any field but it seems that while most fields weed out the inept the same doesn't appear to happen in philosophy - they seem to only spur never-ending "philosophical" debates.

Philosophers are not guilty of anything other people are not guilty of as well.

It's not "philosophers" who are guilty, it's the subject-matter that is just like that. Philosophy is messy and all we have to stop a debate is logic, convincing people or sweet-talking them into being convinced, or things like discrediting them or ignoring them.
You are conflating philosophers with those who think they are philosophers, or as Steve put it, "philosophizers", The philosophizers would be analogous to someone who thinks of themselves as a potter but is incapable of making anything functional. In philosophy, the philosophizer continues on thinking themselves brilliant while the inept "potter" goes out of business and has to find another field where they are competent.
If you can offer more interesting alternative you should speak out.
I have tried but found pointing out errors to those suffering under the Dunning–Kruger effect to be useless.
 
Last edited:
Philosophers are not guilty of anything other people are not guilty of as well.

It's not "philosophers" who are guilty, it's the subject-matter that is just like that. Philosophy is messy and all we have to stop a debate is logic, convincing people or sweet-talking them into being convinced, or things like discrediting them or ignoring them.
You are conflating philosophers with those who think they are philosophers, or as Steve put it, "philosophizers", The philosophizers would be analogous to someone who thinks of themselves as a potter but is incapable of making anything functional. In philosophy, the philosophizer continues on thinking themselves brilliant while the inept "potter" goes out of business and has to find another field where they are competent.

And so you want to go on and on and ignore the problem of the real messiness of philosophy.

Yes, I have to agree with you, there are indeed stupid "philosophisers"! Great news. You know what? There are stupid people!

So, again, the real problem is the messiness of philosophy. Unlike pottery and most businesses, philosophy doesn't have any natural flushing mechanism.

If you can offer more interesting alternative you should speak out.
I have tried but found pointing out errors to those suffering under the Dunning–Kruger effect to be useless.

And there you go again just ignoring what the other guy just said or possibly not understanding what he said. Yes, pointing out errors sometimes, oftentimes, just doesn't work. I have to know that. I was asking whether you had any alternative. But, never mind, I know you don't.
EB
 
If you can offer more interesting alternative you should speak out.
I have tried but found pointing out errors to those suffering under the Dunning–Kruger effect to be useless.

And there you go again just ignoring what the other guy just said or possibly not understanding what he said. Yes, pointing out errors sometimes, oftentimes, just doesn't work. I have to know that. I was asking whether you had any alternative. But, never mind, I know you don't.
EB
Ah, that's a great example. A philosopher questions their understanding of the basis of their arguments (their assumptions) until they assure themselves of the validity. A "philosophizer" goes with what they feel and take it as "truth". You have shown nothing to indicate that you have any understanding of the theory of relativity and yet felt confident enough to believe that you could lecture me on it and not accept or even examine my correction of your assertions or question the validity of what you felt relativity said. However, you felt that your lecture to me would be a waste of time - after all, I disagreed with you so I must be wrong. I am certainly not an expert on the theory of relativity but I do understand enough to have solved quite a few sticky problems using the theory.

In effect, the philosophizer should not assume physical principles they don't understand in their reasoning while ignoring physics majors, assuming they are wrong because they tried to correct them. A philosopher certainly wouldn't.


ETA:
Thanks Steve. Your term, "philosophizer" certainly makes discussions like this much clearer.
 
Last edited:
And there you go again just ignoring what the other guy just said or possibly not understanding what he said. Yes, pointing out errors sometimes, oftentimes, just doesn't work. I have to know that. I was asking whether you had any alternative. But, never mind, I know you don't.
EB
Ah, that's a great example. A philosopher questions their understanding of the basis of their arguments (their assumptions) until they assure themselves of the validity. A "philosophizer" goes with what they feel and take it as "truth". You have shown nothing to indicate that you have any understanding of the theory of relativity and yet felt confident enough to believe that you could lecture me on it and not accept or even examine my correction of your assertions or question the validity of what you felt relativity said. However, you felt that your lecture to me would be a waste of time - after all, I disagreed with you so I must be wrong. I am certainly not an expert on the theory of relativity but I do understand enough to have solved quite a few sticky problems using the theory.

In effect, the philosophizer should not assume physical principles they don't understand in their reasoning while ignoring physics majors, assuming they are wrong because they tried to correct them. A philosopher certainly wouldn't.


ETA:
Thanks Steve. Your term, "philosophizer" certainly makes discussions like this much clearer.

I "lectured" you on Relativity?!

Maybe you could take a leaf or two out of this "philosophizer"? Like quoting people whenever you make specific allegations about them?

So, please quote me lecturing you in any way on Relativity.

I"d like to visit Damascus before I die.
EB
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
Philosophizer is to philosopher what poetaster is to poet: a trumped-up egomaniac who has no real understanding of what H/she is talking about, but makes a pretense to understanding.

Use of the term philosophizer, in this setting, would be pointless, unless user credentials were generally known. Since most users here prefer to remain anonymous (or at least somewhat), this is not the case, except for a good number of people whose cards are on the table, or who are at least making claims to having credentials without putting up, and without shutting up. I doubt there are many of those silly types here, as they are usually sniffed out.

We have had this discussion many times in the past. My view remains the same: this is a public board, where any person can come to talk their talk and walk their walk, at their own peril.*** Usually incompetent members show their colors early, and are gone without so much as a cheerio; still others hang on and wind up down in the flames.


I have wound up a couple times down there, but that was due to my brain disorder, of which I have spoken to any and all, very candidly. I'm currently in a good place, having begun meds, and am leveling out, so that I don't get the delusion of being bullet-proof, and can rely on reason rather than religious euphoria, religious mania, etc. (which is really an interesting subject, if any of y'all should be interested. Dr. Ramachandran is a sympathetic and yet scientific studier of this phenom.)



I suggest, as I always have, that a show of humility in an area wherein you have no skill is always the way to go. Hell, I don't post at all in the science forums, let alone pretend I can be of any use whatsoever there. I can, to some degree, hold my own in the philosophy forums, but I do not for a single second consider myself a philosopher, or even a philosophizer. It is to laugh.

I's a powet, an' a meyusishin, rekkin. at's about it. I can speak with pretty good confidence when it comes to the ins-and-outs of English Lit, but, even in that area, I have always preferred to nod to others and keep on the down low, because that's just the way I am.

So, if one wants claim that a user is "philosophizing", H/she ought to at least know the credentials, or lack thereof, of the user being accused. Short of that, it has all the intellectual caliber of doodeyhead, or asshat.

IMhO



***


GALAHAD: It's not the real Grail?
DINGO: Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot! Oh, she is a naughty
person, and she must pay the penalty -- and here in Castle Anthrax, we
have but one punishment for setting alight the grail-shaped beacon. You
must tie her down on a bed and spank her!
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: You must spank her well. And after you have spanked her, you
may deal with her as you like. And then, spank me.
VARIOUS GIRLS: And spank me.
And me.
And me.
DINGO: Yes, yes, you must give us all a good spanking!
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: And after the spanking, the oral sex.
GIRLS: Oral sex! Oral sex!
GALAHAD: Well, I could stay a BIT longer.
LANCELOT: Sir Galahad!
GALAHAD: Oh, hello.
LANCELOT: Quick!
GALAHAD: What?
LANCELOT: Quick!
GALAHAD: Why?
LANCELOT: You're in great peril!
GALAHAD:
ZOOT:
LANCELOT: Silence, foul temptress!
GALAHAD: Now look, it's not important.
LANCELOT: Quick! Come on and we'll cover your escape!
GALAHAD: Look, I'm fine!
LANCELOT: Come on!
GALAHAD: Now look, I can tackle this lot single-handed!
DINGO: Yes! Let him tackle us single-handed!
GIRLS: Yes! Tackle us single-handed!
LANCELOT: No, Sir Galahad, come on!
GALAHAD: No, really, honestly, I can go back and handle this lot easily!
DINGO: Oh, yes, he can handle us easily.
GIRLS: Yes, yes!
GALAHAD: Wait! I can defeat them! There's only a hundred and fifty
of them!
DINGO: Yes, yes, he'll beat us easily, we haven't a chance.
GIRLS: Yes, yes.
[boom]
DINGO: Oh, shit.
[outside]
LANCELOT: We were in the nick of time, you were in great peril.
GALAHAD: I don't think I was.
LANCELOT: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril.
GALAHAD: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
LANCELOT: No, it's too perilous.
GALAHAD: Look, my particular knight sob as much peril as I can.
LANCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on!
GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril?
LANCELOT: No, it's unhealthy.
GALAHAD: Bet you're gay!




https://legacy.python.org/search/hypermail/python-1994q2/0003.html
 
Last edited:
And there you go again just ignoring what the other guy just said or possibly not understanding what he said. Yes, pointing out errors sometimes, oftentimes, just doesn't work. I have to know that. I was asking whether you had any alternative. But, never mind, I know you don't.
EB
Ah, that's a great example. A philosopher questions their understanding of the basis of their arguments (their assumptions) until they assure themselves of the validity. A "philosophizer" goes with what they feel and take it as "truth". You have shown nothing to indicate that you have any understanding of the theory of relativity and yet felt confident enough to believe that you could lecture me on it and not accept or even examine my correction of your assertions or question the validity of what you felt relativity said. However, you felt that your lecture to me would be a waste of time - after all, I disagreed with you so I must be wrong. I am certainly not an expert on the theory of relativity but I do understand enough to have solved quite a few sticky problems using the theory.

In effect, the philosophizer should not assume physical principles they don't understand in their reasoning while ignoring physics majors, assuming they are wrong because they tried to correct them. A philosopher certainly wouldn't.


ETA:
Thanks Steve. Your term, "philosophizer" certainly makes discussions like this much clearer.

I "lectured" you on Relativity?!

Maybe you could take a leaf or two out of this "philosophizer"? Like quoting people whenever you make specific allegations about them?

So, please quote me lecturing you in any way on Relativity.

I"d like to visit Damascus before I die.
EB
You really should read more carefully. I actually posted that you felt confident enough in your understanding of relativity to believe you could lecture me but didn't because you felt it would be a waste of time.

but since you want the quote I was referring to:
You really think I'm not aware of the fact that people's belief that the Earth wasn't moving was proved wrong by science?!

You can't be "aware" of something that isn't true.

Motion is relative. Einstein taught us that the motionlessness of the earth is optional, not "wrong."

Ah, excellent! I had thought about this very point but decided I didn't want to go into the subtleties of the observers' differing points of views in relativistic frames of reference with somebody who seemed unable or at the very least unwilling to really read the posts on which he comments.

Now that we've cleared this point, let me tell you that the first line in your comment is inappropriate; Well, in fact, clearly inappropriate.

So, can you read my post again and try and explain to me why your comment is indeed inappropriate? It's not terribly difficult, I can assure you. Look at the specific words you use in your post and those I used in my post. It's, well, pretty damn obvious.

EB
 
Last edited:
I "lectured" you on Relativity?!

Maybe you could take a leaf or two out of this "philosophizer"? Like quoting people whenever you make specific allegations about them?

So, please quote me lecturing you in any way on Relativity.

I"d like to visit Damascus before I die.
EB
You really should read more carefully. I actually posted that you felt confident enough in your understanding of relativity to believe you could lecture me but didn't because you felt it would be a waste of time.

Read it again. It is an allegation. It's you saying I'm as good as having lectured you. You attributed to me the belief I could lecture you.

And this without supplying any evidence of that.

Because you don't have any, as come to light below.

but since you want the quote I was referring to:
You really think I'm not aware of the fact that people's belief that the Earth wasn't moving was proved wrong by science?!

You can't be "aware" of something that isn't true.

Motion is relative. Einstein taught us that the motionlessness of the earth is optional, not "wrong."

Ah, excellent! I had thought about this very point but decided I didn't want to go into the subtleties of the observers' differing points of views in relativistic frames of reference with somebody who seemed unable or at the very least unwilling to really read the posts on which he comments.

Now that we've cleared this point, let me tell you that the first line in your comment is inappropriate; Well, in fact, clearly inappropriate.

So, can you read my post again and try and explain to me why your comment is indeed inappropriate? It's not terribly difficult, I can assure you. Look at the specific words you use in your post and those I used in my post. It's, well, pretty damn obvious.

EB

First, I'm not lecturing anyone in there.

Second, my comment on Relativity is factual: I didn't want to go into the subtleties of the observers' differing points of views in relativistic frames of reference.

I could well have decided to try it with somebody else. But not with you because you're a difficult customer. As I justified by my subsequent assessment in the same sentence.

So, where you were indeed directly if only implicitly concerned is in my assessment that you seemed unable or at the very least unwilling to really read the posts on which he comments. That bit still seems true to me and in any case has clearly nothing to do with Relativity or a suggestion that I could lecture you on Relativity.

So, I won't go to Damascus yet.

Your turn: You really should read more carefully.

I think I'm done here. You, you're not. Whenever you have the time.
EB
 
You're not even making sense.
EB
 
You're not even making sense.
EB

I think I'm in sympathy, EB. This Dunning-Kruger effect is just another means for closet classists and intellectual elitists to pat themselves on the back.

Pray ye, pay it no attention. Not that there is no truth in it. My brother is a retired high-tech machinist who thinks everyone should be able to work on complex machines. He hates it that I can't even change a tire, and he gets even more steamed when I tell him I don't even fucking care to learn. I tell him: That's why there are places called auto repair shops, and grease monkeys who get paid to fix things.

Oh boy, some people are extremely sensitive.
 
You're not even making sense.
EB

I think I'm in sympathy, EB. This Dunning-Kruger effect is just another means for closet classists and intellectual elitists to pat themselves on the back.

Nah, you're just a self-deluded Dunning-Kruger case. ;)

Still, it's certainly very convenient. Whenever you don't know how to argue your case, you call the other guy a bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Works for some. :(

grease monkeys who get paid to fix things.

Oops, you've just taken the slippery end of things there.

Oh boy, some people are extremely sensitive.

I would have told you. We seem to have the same brother. :D
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom