Prev: My css-layout success: comments?
Next: Which (current) browsers do NOT support <iframes> ?
From: Ed Mullen on 9 Jan 2010 15:32
Mason C wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:38:43 -0500, Ed Mullen<ed(a)edmullen.net> wrote:
>
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article<g6-dnU1iYqfl2NrWnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)posted.expedient>,
>>> Bill BRaun<me(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Throughout this thread I have kept wondering: "Hmm. Is it that he's so
>>>>> old that he can't see colors anymore? ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No need to get personal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, you are right. But Ed was completely drunk at the time and everyone
>>> has a right to be this now and then without hiding the fact...<g>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> No no! I was sober when I viewed the page and it drove me to drink.
>>
>> In fact, having reviewed the thread (Oh, God! Why do I do this!?) and
>> the page in question I need to drink again!!!
>>
>> I will say this in defense (uh, "support"?) of the author. I couldn't
>> create such a mess if I set out to do it on purpose. The poor man is
>> lost. I mean, look, I'm not designer. I'll never create anything
>> noteworthy, design-wise, in a Web page. My goal is, kinda, don't make
>> anyone throw up.
>>
>> There ya go! OP might want to consider that.
>>
> You've lost me. Which page(s) are you looking at?
> (I must manage all of them -- having deleted many others.)
>
The one that originally started this thread. Which is now gone.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Chastity is curable if detected early.

From: dorayme on 9 Jan 2010 15:58
In article <slrnhkgjg2.35d.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote:


[dorayme said that Newton was wrong in some context...]

> >> There is a real question here, though, which is that if you are going to
> >> say Newton's mechanics are _false_, can you name an alternative
> >> mechanics that aren't?
> >>
> >
> > It might be argued plausibly that taking into account Einstein special
> > and general theories of relativity gives predictions that are not
> > possible under unmodified Newtown.
>
> GR definitely gives more accurate results than Newton's gravitation
> equation. The point is that, although better, it may still be "false" in
> the strictest possible sense.
>

It depends *what* point is being discussed. In the sense I say that
Darwin will never be wrong in fact, Einstein might not be either. I
admit though that it seems more likely to me that a future physics will
upend things so much - like Einstein so breathtakingly did to Newton -
that this will not be so.


> [...]
> > Well, we have to make up our minds, if it *really* makes sense and there
> > is a reality, then it is highly likely that something is more useful for
> > precisely the reason that it models how things really are and not merely
> > how they seem.
>
> Or maybe it's just a better model of how they seem.
>

Yes, of course, there is always this maybe. But maybes are just maybes.

You are stacking the case by talking about *models*. A model is a model
of something else. A theory is not a theory of something *else*. One
reason for something being a good model of something else is that it is
a very good description of how things really are *in certain respects*.
But in equating theories of how the world works or how the world is,
with models, you are making the mistake of separating the theory from
the reality as if we can have independent clear notions of each. But
this is not how it works. We cannot even think outside *all* theory.

It does not make any sense ultimately to say a theory can never *really*
be a true description of what it is a theory of because there is simply
no way to check the 'about' bit independently of some theory or other.
Your maybe is just to say no more than maybe one theory will be replaced
by another, and this is perfectly true.

But I sense you are trying to say something more skeptical and that
really, there is no truth, no how things really are. I reject such
notions because they do not make any real sense. The sense they make is
just that we can never be sure about all the details and we *can* be
wrong about big things too (there are no fixed species created by a some
magical 6000 years ago - how big was this for how many centuries?).

> > Darwin was right and the theory of the always-fixed species was wrong.
> > Darwin described our world, the theists got our world wrong. Now all
> > this I believe to be true even if Stuart Kauffman proves to be correct
> > and that there is another stronger underlying signal in the evolution of
> > life on earth.
>
> I suppose the difference is that the theory of always-fixed species
> isn't even useful, so I have no hesitation either in saying it's false.

I would agree with you if you were just saying that the relative
difference in utility between two theories was a sign of the respective
truth and falsity. But you seem to me not to be just saying this.

There is a simple/deep reason that some theories are more useful than
others: they might be true! You might prefer 'closer to the truth'.
Fine, but 'closer to' implies something might be 'very close' and even
'so close it is not funny'. The point is that it must make sense that
the gap either vanishes or becomes vanishingly small. It is not merely
utility.

--
dorayme
From: Sherm Pendley on 10 Jan 2010 17:58
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes:

> In article <m2zl4mqasc.fsf(a)shermpendley.com>,
> Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless
>> you're deliberately going for a "retro" theme, you should drop them.
>> For that matter, why on Earth would you need a table to begin with,
>> for such a dead-simple layout
>
> To be *deeply* retro?

Ah, good point! I hadn't considered that possibility.

Now I'm wondering if the page will work in Cello. ;-)

sherm--
From: dorayme on 13 Jan 2010 14:57
In article <doraymeRidThis-7AD234.07582910012010(a)news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <slrnhkgjg2.35d.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>
> [dorayme said that Newton was wrong in some context...]
>
> > >> There is a real question here, though, which is that if you are going to
> > >> say Newton's mechanics are _false_, can you name an alternative
> > >> mechanics that aren't?
> > >>
> > >
> > > It might be argued plausibly that taking into account Einstein special
> > > and general theories of relativity gives predictions that are not
> > > possible under unmodified Newtown.
> >
> > GR definitely gives more accurate results than Newton's gravitation
> > equation. The point is that, although better, it may still be "false" in
> > the strictest possible sense.
> >
>
> It depends *what* point is being discussed. In the sense I say that
> Darwin will never be wrong in fact, Einstein might not be either. I
> admit though that it seems more likely to me that a future physics will
> upend things so much - like Einstein so breathtakingly did to Newton -
> that this will not be so.
>
>
> > [...]
> > > Well, we have to make up our minds, if it *really* makes sense and there
> > > is a reality, then it is highly likely that something is more useful for
> > > precisely the reason that it models how things really are and not merely
> > > how they seem.
> >
> > Or maybe it's just a better model of how they seem.
> >
>
> Yes, of course, there is always this maybe. But maybes are just maybes.
>

It has been worrying me that I said yes in immediate above. Gives the
wrong impression by not questioning the sense of 'one model being better
than another in respect to how things seem'. I can sort of think of a
contrived context.

> ... A model is a model
> of something else. A theory is not a theory of something *else*. One
> reason for something being a good model of something else is that it is
> a very good description of how things really are *in certain respects*.
> But in equating theories of how the world works or how the world is,
> with models, you are making the mistake of separating the theory from
> the reality as if we can have independent clear notions of each. But
> this is not how it works. We cannot even think outside *all* theory.
....

--
dorayme
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: My css-layout success: comments?
Next: Which (current) browsers do NOT support <iframes> ?