Why do I have the distinct impression I am being baited into another useless round of thinly veiled insults and sermonizing ?
Just wake up from a prolonged slumber, whiskers ?
This thread sorta died out a long time ago, for me, when the insults and sermons so completely masked out any reasoned discussion.
“You are suffering from a truncated metaphysic.
Argument from authority is not logically valid but the data transferred in such a manner may be veridical ( of or relating to revelations in dreams, hallucinations, etc., that appear to be confirmed by subsequent events ) or veriferous ( ??? Haven’t found this’n yet ).”
If I had ANY idea what this wordstream is actually intended to convey, I MIGHT attempt to respond.
Since I don’t ... I won’t.
Invitation to a pointless waste of time — declined.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
I can't answer that; I don't know you and don't remember seeing your screen name before.
Just wake up from a prolonged slumber, whiskers ?
Ask around. I have a habit of tripping over a thread after it's died down and reading it from start to finish, responding one after another to any post which takes my fancy.
Drives some people nuts, some people just shrug and go "It's only whiskers, so what?"
Argument from authority is not logically valid but the data transferred in such a manner may be veridical ( of or relating to revelations in dreams, hallucinations, etc., that appear to be confirmed by subsequent events ) or veriferous ( ??? Haven’t found this’n yet ).”
Veridical is "Truthful; veracious: veridical testimony. Coinciding with future events or apparently unknowable present realities: a veridical." (from answers.com).
Not to do with dreams.
Veriferous is from the same root as VERIFy.
The point is that many people seem to conflate "not logically valid" with "necessarily untrue".
Thus only things which derive from logical conclusions validly derived from agreed-upon axioms, or things derived experiementally, are held (by some) to be true.
Which is actually sloppy thinking: there are other things which may be true, but by neglecting "falsifiability" one rejects them -- think of the O.J. trial and "not guilty" vs. "not proven", or of the null hypothesis.
It is not that the null hypothesis necessarily gives a "true" model or account of things, but that it avoids giving philosophical false positives. This is not an absolute good, but it is useful if (as is the goal of applied science) one wishes to enable and to effectuate control of phenomenon.
Because if something isn't regular or reproducible enough that you can rely on it or (in a manner of speaking) "compel" it to occur, then that thing's utility is limited, and it can be left out of the picture as far as being a target of applied science.
But this is a very different thing, though often forgotten, as being logically justified in logically denying or excluding its existence altogether...
Cheers!