ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/09/85)
My apologies to anyone who has seen this article more than once. We've
been having major problems with usenet in the D.C. area. Since Sept. 15,
when the CVL computer at U. Md. was taken down with no warning to anyone
below it on usenet (which is most of the D.C. area), very little has
gotten through one way or the other. For awhile, it will be difficult to
tell what has gotten through and what hasn't.
I honestly can't tell if you're serious about any of this, Padraig,
but on the off chance that you are, here goes:
>
>1) Ted has stated that mathematics is wrong and is based on incorrect
> assumptions. Since it was mathematics that allowed us to send
> a spacecraft to successfully intercept a comet last week Ted's
> statement is demonstrably incorrect, and hence Ted's knowledge
> of mathematics is suspect.
What are you doing, Padraig? Reading every third line of my articles?
I mean, you people at UT are accusing ME of quoting other people out of
context! The original quote was:
"In a sense, the science of mathematics is based on an invalid
assumption; that there is such a thing in the universe as proving
ANYTHING. In reality, there is only such a thing as proving something
to SOMEBODY's satisfaction."
This was meant as a humerous introduction to the discussion
of my proof vis a vis the ultrasaur and Wayne Throop's
reasons for not liking it. Anyone who has ever attended graduate level
courses in mathematics, as I have and you obviously haven't, would see
the humor in this one. Geesh! But if you have to explain a joke to
someone......
>2) Ted has criticized all authors of textbooks. He could not find
> a single branch of study to exempt from this proclamation.
> Ted's sense of reality is suspect.
The manner in which the statement I was reacting to was written
indicated a likelihood that the statement had been looked up in the
wrong place. A better statement of what I was trying to say might be:
"If something can be figured logically, figure it out logically with
no further ado. You're likely to screw up by doing anything else."
I intended no slur on text-book authors outside the realm of the single
item which I was discussing. If I sound like I've been a little
ticked-off a couple of times during these articles on dinosaurs, it's
because my own opinion is that I should not have to PROVE logically
that 300,000 lb creatures couldn't walk, or that 300 lb creatures
couldn't fly in our gravity. That should be flaming obvious to anybody,
particularly somebody calling himself a scientist, supposedly more
intelligent than ordinary people. This, to me, is another one of these
cases in which I see the lack of contact with ordinary kinds of reality
interfering with "scientists'" ability to deal with reality. Anybody
who has witnessed the unholy difficulties which 30 lb. albatrosses have
getting airborne, for instance, could not possibly make any of the
flagrantly STUPID assertions which Langston made and Jefferys quoted
about a 300 lb. pterosaur simply spreading his wings and ascending into
a mild breeze from low ground.
>3) Ted has been confronted with an error in the manner in which he quoted
> material from someone's work. Instead of correcting the error by
> retracting that part of his argument, he did nothing. Ted's
> integrity is therefore suspect.
This one simply makes no sense to me. My original statement, which
may be paraphrased roughly as:
"Authors who have done any thinking on the subject of pterosaurs
have come to the logical conclusion that these creatures could not have
flown, yet knew that somehow they had to and did, hence an enigma..."
accurately describes what a reader will actually find in these articles.
I cannot see any necessity for me to have quoted Langston's entire
article, thereby putting most net.origins readers to sleep, in order to
claim honesty in quoting the INTELLIGENT part of Langston's article,
which was the description of the views of aeronautical engineers
regarding the Texas pterosaurs.
I suspect there really is something to the notion that Jefferys doesn't
like me quoting a University of Texas professor, since he could easily
have cried the same tune over the manner in which I quoted Adrian
Desmond, and his crying would have just as mis-placed.
>4) Look at the following:
>
>> trees. None of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary
>> mode of transportation and, in that sense, there are no true
>> gliders amongst the animals of our planet. There are none now,
>> there have never been any, and there never shall be any.
>
> Ted claims that we will never find any fossils
> or remains of creatures that rely on gliding as their primary
> mode of transportation. One can say that one thinks it unlikely
> for certain reasons, but it is not scientific to say it without
> qualification. Ted's delusions of doing science are therefore suspect.
Some things can't happen, Padraig. I believe in telling it like it is.
It is not unscientific, for example, to state that no human could
survive setting foot on the sun.
However, you are free to follow any practices you like regarding the manner in
which you describe certainties.
>
>Ted you are making a poor impression here. I might be wrong, but the above
>seem to indicate that (a) you are ignorant of mathematics, (b) you
>are ignorant of reality, (c) you are lacking in integrity, and
>(d) you are ignorant of science. In short, you are ignorant.
>
>Now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will
>wait for you to show me how wrong I am; all you have to do is make
>simple retractions, or even qualifications, to the above four topics.
>It's real easy. Just say something like "math works pretty well", and
>maybe an admission like "I don't know absolutely everything, therefore
>I was wrong when I said that all textbook authors are wrong". A small
>comment like "I seem to have made a mistake when I failed to retract
>an error that was pointed out to me" would also go a long way towards
>piecing the shreds of your credibility back together again.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Padraig Houlahan.
>
Fair enough. To the greatest extent possible, I have answered your
four questions. I am reserving the right to ask YOU four
questions at some point in time of my choosing.padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (10/10/85)
> I honestly can't tell if you're serious about any of this, Padraig, > but on the off chance that you are, here goes: > > > > >1) Ted has stated that mathematics is wrong and is based on incorrect > > assumptions. Since it was mathematics that allowed us to send > > a spacecraft to successfully intercept a comet last week Ted's > > statement is demonstrably incorrect, and hence Ted's knowledge > > of mathematics is suspect. > > What are you doing, Padraig? Reading every third line of my articles? > I mean, you people at UT are accusing ME of quoting other people out of > context! The original quote was: > > "In a sense, the science of mathematics is based on an invalid > assumption; that there is such a thing in the universe as proving > ANYTHING. In reality, there is only such a thing as proving something > to SOMEBODY's satisfaction." > > This was meant as a humerous introduction to the discussion > of my proof vis a vis the ultrasaur and Wayne Throop's > reasons for not liking it. Anyone who has ever attended graduate level > courses in mathematics, as I have and you obviously haven't, would see > the humor in this one. Geesh! But if you have to explain a joke to > someone...... Well I'm happy to see you straighten out that mess. It really is hard to tell where you are making fun. When I last studied math it had not been raised to the status of a proper science, since mathematical axioms then were not subject to experimental verification. > >2) Ted has criticized all authors of textbooks. He could not find > > a single branch of study to exempt from this proclamation. > > Ted's sense of reality is suspect. > > The manner in which the statement I was reacting to was written > indicated a likelihood that the statement had been looked up in the > wrong place. A better statement of what I was trying to say might be: > > "If something can be figured logically, figure it out logically with > no further ado. You're likely to screw up by doing anything else." So everyone should re-derive General Relativity independently, for themselves? > I intended no slur on text-book authors outside the realm of the single > item which I was discussing. If I sound like I've been a little > ticked-off a couple of times during these articles on dinosaurs, it's > because my own opinion is that I should not have to PROVE logically > that 300,000 lb creatures couldn't walk, or that 300 lb creatures > couldn't fly in our gravity. That should be flaming obvious to anybody, > particularly somebody calling himself a scientist, supposedly more > intelligent than ordinary people. This, to me, is another one of these > cases in which I see the lack of contact with ordinary kinds of reality > interfering with "scientists'" ability to deal with reality. Anybody > who has witnessed the unholy difficulties which 30 lb. albatrosses have > getting airborne, for instance, could not possibly make any of the > flagrantly STUPID assertions which Langston made and Jefferys quoted > about a 300 lb. pterosaur simply spreading his wings and ascending into > a mild breeze from low ground. It was obvious to many, at one period of time, that heavier than air machines could never fly either. It's not obvious why a gyroscope should precess , but it does. When the obvious seems to contradict much of experimentally verified science, then there are only two possible courses of action: one or the other must be revised. The experimentally verified science here is so self-consistent that it is not appropriate to sacrifice it just for the "obvious", until at some stage the "obvious" has comparable evidence to support it. This is why the onus is on you to prove that it is impossible for our gravity to have been constant. > >3) Ted has been confronted with an error in the manner in which he quoted > > material from someone's work. Instead of correcting the error by > > retracting that part of his argument, he did nothing. Ted's > > integrity is therefore suspect. > > This one simply makes no sense to me. My original statement, which > may be paraphrased roughly as: > > "Authors who have done any thinking on the subject of pterosaurs > have come to the logical conclusion that these creatures could not have > flown, yet knew that somehow they had to and did, hence an enigma..." > > accurately describes what a reader will actually find in these articles. > I cannot see any necessity for me to have quoted Langston's entire > article, thereby putting most net.origins readers to sleep, in order to > claim honesty in quoting the INTELLIGENT part of Langston's article, > which was the description of the views of aeronautical engineers > regarding the Texas pterosaurs. > You have already been taken to task on this. > >4) Look at the following: > > > >> trees. None of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary > >> mode of transportation and, in that sense, there are no true > >> gliders amongst the animals of our planet. There are none now, > >> there have never been any, and there never shall be any. > > > > Ted claims that we will never find any fossils > > or remains of creatures that rely on gliding as their primary > > mode of transportation. One can say that one thinks it unlikely > > for certain reasons, but it is not scientific to say it without > > qualification. Ted's delusions of doing science are therefore suspect. > > Some things can't happen, Padraig. I believe in telling it like it is. > It is not unscientific, for example, to state that no human could > survive setting foot on the sun. Or that heavier than air machines can never fly? Sounds like another statement of the obvious to me. Just because something is obvious and our understanding of it is correct in no way guarantees the corectness of something else that is "obvious". "... telling it like it is" - that almost sounds like you finally got your overwhelming evidence... Padraig Houlahan.