3 edits
Originally posted by apathiststrawman
I had asked if When talking about the meanings of words, science has NOTHING to say about it? You reply that (paraphrase) [b]other than a science that is 'all about the psychology of what people mean', it is correct to say that science has nothing to say about the meanings of words.
On one hand, science invents words routinely, a ...[text shortened]... where they list the words used and the definitions intended by their use.
So you are wrong.[/b]
PLEASE don't lie!
I did NOT say the vague statement "science has nothing to say about the meanings of words", which can be said to be wrong depending on how you interpret that vague statement. Why did you change my statement to one I didn't say? To change it from one you cannot attack to one you can?
I DID say unless the science is specifically about the phycology of what we mean about words/terms, science doesn't say what the words/terms SHOULD be. NOTE; "SHOULD be" does not equate with "are" nor "is" like you have done here.
"SHOULD be" ≠ "are"
"SHOULD be" ≠ "is"
DIFFERENT meanings.
Originally posted by humyScience DOES say what terms mean, and it also says what it means by terms.
strawman
PLEASE don't lie!
I did NOT say the vague statement "science has nothing to say about the meanings of words", which can be said to be wrong depending on how you interpret that vague statement. Why did you change my statement to one I didn't say? To change it from one you cannot attack to one you can?
I DID say unless the science is specifically about t ...[text shortened]... r "is" like you have done here.
"SHOULD be" ≠ "are"
"SHOULD be" ≠ "is"
DIFFERENT meanings.
It invents terms, as I've shown. It defines terms, as I've argued and can easily show all day long. What is wrong with you?
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistAgain, strawman.
Science DOES say what terms mean,
That isn't what I said and you know it.
Of course science terminology defines meaning of terms.
What I am saying is that science (more specifically scientific method) doesn't say what the meaning of terms SHOULD mean, as opposed to what meaning science DOES give those terms.
SHOULD ≠ DOES
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistWrong!
In every case.
Quantum physics does NOT assume a particular outcome being what it is rather than being some other possible outcome of apparently random quantum event has a cause.
If a particle in an apparently random quantum system is detected at point A when according to quantum physics it would have been just as likely to have been detected at point B, quantum physics does not say/imply there is a 'cause' of why it was detected at point A as opposed to point B. If you just study and learn and understand the quantum physics equations like I have you would know this.
Please prove me wrong by showing WHICH quantum physics equation says such a specific possible quantum event outcome turning out to be what it is (rather than being some other possible quantum event outcome) has a cause....
Originally posted by humyQuantum physics does not say that oh no! this event has no deterministic cause and therefore it must be uncaused!
Wrong!
Quantum physics does NOT assume a particular outcome being what it is rather than being some other possible outcome of apparently random quantum event has a cause.
Since the old-school physicists were determinists, they looked for hidden variables. That didn't work, and we have a new school now.
At no point was the scientific explanation for an event just sheesh, no reason for that!
Originally posted by apathistAs the great comedian Mitch Hedberg used to say, "I know what's going on here.... Bigfoot is blurry! There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside."
It's like humy and tw want to stop discussions of subjects they don't understand. Just roadblocks and bs until at best they admit they were wrong by making it your fault!
I think the best plan is to give them some math problems, and while they are distracted we can talk about other stuff.