xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: James Jolley on 3 Jun 2010 07:42 On 2010-06-03 08:59:29 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a model, am I not right? > > No. You are wrong. > > 'Human nature' doesn't refer to all humans, just to the great majority. True enough, but you're forgetting, Rowly is arguing with a "professional philosopher" remember, it's fine for him to do it but nobody else. He's professor Rowland McTroll-Land
From: Rowland McDonnell on 3 Jun 2010 09:07 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a model, am I not right? > > No. You are wrong. No. I am right. Peter, you really have to try to learn how to engage in debate - if you think I'm wrong, you should *explain* yourself, instead of just stating that you disagree with me - if a reasonable discussion is what you are after. > 'Human nature' doesn't refer to all humans, just to the great majority. You have failed to define exactly what - in your opinion - the phrase 'human nature' refers to. And who says your statement has any validity at all? I think that your personal opinion in this is completely wrong, for reasons that I think I have given in full in this thread. Maybe you should read my explanations and try to understand them before spouting off any more on the subject? Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: zoara on 4 Jun 2010 10:58 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >> OK, if you want a specific example - Sak mentioned Matthew Crawford > > who >> was on Start the Week on Monday. Matthew Crawford's thesis is that it > > is >> in human nature to derive satisfaction from interaction with and > > problem >> solving in the physical world at the manual level. >> >> I think he's probably right. > > Some human beings are unable to do that - Stephen Hawking, for > example. > He derives satisfaction from problem solving in the physical world at > the intellectual level. > > One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a model, am I not > right? Perhaps this is a problem with one's definition of the word "nature". I consider it "my nature" to let people out of side lanes or past cars parked on the side of the road, even though there are rare times I'll barrel through and to hell with politeness. If something is "in my nature" I consider that to be the way I *usually* act, not the way I *always* act. If it was something that I always did, without exception, I'd use another word. To me, "human nature" is more like "the habits of humans" than "the rigidly defined behaviours of humans". -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jun 2010 05:11 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> OK, if you want a specific example - Sak mentioned Matthew Crawford > > > who > >> was on Start the Week on Monday. Matthew Crawford's thesis is that it > > > is > >> in human nature to derive satisfaction from interaction with and > > > problem > >> solving in the physical world at the manual level. > >> > >> I think he's probably right. > > > > Some human beings are unable to do that - Stephen Hawking, for > > example. > > He derives satisfaction from problem solving in the physical world at > > the intellectual level. > > > > One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a model, am I not > > right? > > Perhaps this is a problem with one's definition of the word "nature". [snip] No, it's a problem with people refusing to consider the issue of semantics in the first place. I know that the problem with all such discussions is the refusal to sort out the semantics before diving in. Even Daniele is guilty of that one, and he should know better. If it were possible to engage people in discussions on semantics to resolve the sort of problem, discussions would be easier. But I've learnt that if you *DO* try to get semantics sorted out (especially anywhere on-line), then you just get attacked viciously. That's the real problem - your refusal to sort out the semantics. You're guilty. Rowland. P.S. Your definition of `human nature' is worthless to my mind. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 5 Jun 2010 05:37
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > That's the real problem - your refusal to sort out the semantics. > > You're guilty. You're not fit to judge. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |