=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Lying for Columbine
Log In to post a reply
91 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
stray
stray
2057 posts

Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 20:41
"It's a very accurate model compared to previous models, and as we get better at measuring stuff the models will continue to get more accurate. It doesn't matter if there's a "real particle" in there, it's all models. The map is not the territory.
"

Agreed. As I was saying, relating this to the guys article, his map is as flawed as any other. I also dont believe applying many maps gets you closer to anything. But thats just me.

"It FLOWS FROM OBSERVATION, not the other way around."

Same with magical models I'm afraid, they're based on experiences. They didn't come out of a vaccum. Ah well, yeah, they did, there was summing that needed explaining so someone made something up. hey-ho. Doesnt matter though does it. Science fills gaps the same way, thru observations and measuring tools. so ?

"Understanding" . . . that's very philosophical. The point is "rationality" makes the Internet work and airplanes fly. All magic ever does is make you "feel better about things you don't understand."

This makes no sense in regard to anything I said. I dont care about defining a difference between magical or rational in terms of thought. Or in terms of anything else for that matter. I was saying it's irrelevant, and a futile way of looking at thought, for the reasons I detailed earlier.

"What does "probability" have to do with a deity? One is a model, the other a "mechanism."

soz, this is a semantic thing. I fail to see the difference between model and mechanism personally. I've built plenty of models in my career, could be my own personal perceptually problem here. God is a model too u know ? not one that can be quantised, but heck there are shitloads of things that can't be quantised, which is my point.

"I already said it would have been a better article if he stuck to the "philosophy" and left his political positions out of it."

And I at no point disagreed with you saying this, if you think I did, you're wrong.

Look. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong working with approximations. What I am saying is it is wrong to say 'its right, it's the truth' simply because its self fulfilling. No sensible scientist or philosopher would talk that way.
In reply to:
Re: Lying for Columbine (Dog 3000)		 Replies:
Re: Lying for Columbine (stray)
Re: Lying for Columbine (Dog 3000)
Re: Lying for Columbine (morfe)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index