Posted: Apr 28, 2010 1:41 pm
Sure, it's your prerogative to insult me while pretending that you're merely "observing" the "truth", and also to ignore my points. It's somewhat dishonest from your part to pretend that I didn't answer your question, which is an obvious strawman that I've explained in depths already. My attitude has nothing to do with your dismissals, I venture, for you are too quick on the authority argument for my taste.
Attitudes come both ways, FM, and while we should bear in mind the informal nature of this forum, if one is here exchanging ideas, arguments and sources, to answer a concern with the lazy "they are smart, intelligent and competent, they surely worked that out" may be technically "correct", but sure as hell uninteresting and uninformative. The concern does not go away, it still rests upon the trust concern I was referring to.
As to "HOW" to solve the GCM problem, why are you even asking me? You do know I am humble enough to know that I am not able to come up with the technical method to achieve it, although I think I am able to recognize good methods when I see them. There is a clear contradiction between current methods and scientific concepts like falsification, verification, data feedback, independent checking, etc. This is not General Relativity, where if one observation falsifies it, it spells doom for the theory. No, this is the land of uncertainty and "holistic" statistical probabilities, where it is all too easy for us to fool ourselves with too much certainty.
To make huge efforts to know something (laudable in itself) is still not equal to actually know it. I just hoped someone here could see that difference.
Attitudes come both ways, FM, and while we should bear in mind the informal nature of this forum, if one is here exchanging ideas, arguments and sources, to answer a concern with the lazy "they are smart, intelligent and competent, they surely worked that out" may be technically "correct", but sure as hell uninteresting and uninformative. The concern does not go away, it still rests upon the trust concern I was referring to.
As to "HOW" to solve the GCM problem, why are you even asking me? You do know I am humble enough to know that I am not able to come up with the technical method to achieve it, although I think I am able to recognize good methods when I see them. There is a clear contradiction between current methods and scientific concepts like falsification, verification, data feedback, independent checking, etc. This is not General Relativity, where if one observation falsifies it, it spells doom for the theory. No, this is the land of uncertainty and "holistic" statistical probabilities, where it is all too easy for us to fool ourselves with too much certainty.
To make huge efforts to know something (laudable in itself) is still not equal to actually know it. I just hoped someone here could see that difference.