Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote:
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote:
Jon Pike wrote:

... "proof" ... means quantified, measured
results.

Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs
often require years or even decades of
discussion and peer review ...

... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide
ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used
his claim to having been an editor for a scientific
journal for many years as a trump card, rather than
actually answer any of the questions I was asking.

So, I have no qualms about holding someone using
such tactics to such a standard, especially when
they're making such wide-ranging claims about
totally unsubjective, unartistic matters.

You're making two claims here. First, that your
insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the
use of argument from authority by your counterpart.

I'm not requesting a definition of "proof."

I'm not saying that you are. I said clearly -- clearly --
that you are "insisting" on a definition of proof, that is
to say, you are providing one, not requesting one.

I'm requesting that he either admit his opinions are
only opinions, or conduct his tests in a scientific manner.

But that is a false dichotomy -- a fundamental error
in logic, discourse and "scientific" method. You insist
that your interlocutor "either this or that," while
neither "this or that" are relevant. You provide an
irrelevant definition of proof, yet demand adherence
or surrender.

If that is true,

But, since you're not reading things clearly, it's not true.

Oh, dear. You are giving up, aren't you?

-snip-

Well, I see that you choose not discussion but pique.
That's quite childish, isn't it.

Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion
revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic"
matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate?

No, it's not. The question was about "theoretical
equivalent resolution."

And how to judge same, correct? The nature of
evaluation is the topic under discussion. You prefer
numerical evaluation of lab data. Others have
provided alternative methods of judgment, which
you choose to ignore -- in a rather churlish fashion --
insisting on your own definitions instead, and refusing
to enter into a higher level discussion which is far
more relevant.

If other people want to try to take it off topic and
talk about "quality" then they're doing simply that,
straying off topic.

No, it's the main topic that you choose to ignore --
how to evaluate the numbers you insist on swimming in.

You are assuming your conclusion.

Where's your evidence of that?

It's in the part you snipped and ignored.

Here is your statement:
"proof" ... means quantified, measured results.

And my response was that this is a necessary, but
not a sufficient, definition.

... I asked earlier for an example of a "science"
that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results.
The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to
-not- be science. Although methodical, and probably
very useful, it's not science. If you've got another
example for me, I'd be glad to hear it.

Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature
of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified
science.

You weren't following along.

Oh dear, you are inadequate in these discussions, aren't
you?

So... your statement there is rather silly.

"Silly," am I?

Well, Jon, I think I've seen enough of you to judge
that you can't hold your own in a serious discussion.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are simply
too light to trifle with.

We are exploring the nature of quantifiable
data upon a visual perceptive art.

Nope. We're not discussing "art" at all.

Most of the rest of us are clearly discussing the value
of quantifiable measurements when evaluating the
esthetic outcome of various forms of image processing.
You seem to be lost at the lower technical level of
measuring grain size and percentage of lost resolution
and so on, which is all well and good, but you don't
connect these factors to the photograph itself. This
is a bit like talking to a ham radio operator with a
gigantic powerful rig, a wonderful 3-element beam
antenna ... and nothing to say with all that gear.

But I will deal with
that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding
the nature of science did not negate the value of hard
data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into
interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof"
and even political concerns. One might easily "prove"
that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude
that because of this fact, A has greater import to the
topic than B.

You're talking about entirely different things now, trying
to change the topic, make a point, and then claim you've
"beaten" me. That's a straw man argument.

No, Jon, I'm afraid you're lost again, in a swirl of high
school debate terms. A straw man is when your opponent
creates an irrelevant conclusion from your own words, then
knocks that down. I was using an analogy to make my own
point clear. That point was brought up by you, Jon, not
by me. You posited that hard data equals proof, and I was
agreeing with you that hard data is important. Note to Jon --
agreeing with you. I then went a step further to attempt
to explain that at a higher level of scientific value, raw
data needs interpretation.

If you want to talk about what we're talking about,
go right ahead. Please, stay on topic though.

Making demands on me, are you Jon? It's a shame you
haven't the horsepower to keep up. You really are quite
limited, aren't you?

-snip invalid examples-

Can't handle them, can you?

Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified
science, these exist all around you. Early theories
about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum
theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology
now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In
these cases, theory always leads quantification.
In biology, exploration and observation often precedes
quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is
a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship
relationships do not require proof at all, but simply
delineation of existing conditions.

*sigh*

Are you lovesick, Jon? Been watching porno again, in the dorm?

Okay, how 'bout this.
You outline what you think the scientific method is.
Take as many or as few steps as you need.
Then we'll have a basis from which to carry this discussion.

No, I don't follow your instructions. You've made it clear
that you believe that what you call "proof" demands -- as
a necessary and sufficient condition -- hard data only.
I outlined my reasons for disagreeing with that position,
in a polite and thorough fashion.

You chose to ignore and demean most of my points.
So I see no further value in discussing anything with you,
Jon, anything at all. Not even the weather.

Because as it is, if you're calling something that's purely exploratory
"science," then you either do not understand the scientific method, or
you're trying to change it into something it's not.

Well, I could discuss my background, but we already know
that you have a problem with that kind of talk, so let's just
leave things as they are.

-snip more invalid examples-

See, now, Jon, that's why I don't really think it's worth
putting more effort into this, because you just are not able
to respond.

Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and
"proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom
you are talking, but are also limited to a very
narrow and low level of relevance.

You haven't seen what *I* hold as a definition of science.
But rest assured, it is 100% accurate.

Quantifiably so, I am sure. The fact that you would even
make a statement about the possibility of scientific method
being described in a "100% accurate" manner shows that
you don't even understand the nature of the discipline you
claim to be expert in. This is like saying, "I can tell you what
beauty is, 100% accurately."

Anyone even slightly familiar with modern scientific theory
knows that there are raging -- raging -- debates about
how to evaluate data and how to describe method. In
fact, there is even a debate over whether method is even
of primal import, or if reliability or justification are more
important.

Are you familiar with falsifiability, Jon? Conjunctive forks?
The feminist interpretation of logic and proof? Do you
favor Carnap or Popper? Are you a constructive empiricist?
Do you distinguish between real observable entitities and
putative observable entities, what Quine called the "unactualized
impossibles?"

I'm interested in what -you- think the definition of "science" is though,
and like I asked just before, what you think the "scientific method"
entails.

More than you comprehend, and far more than you most
likely will ever be able to comprehend.

For a start though, I'd say I favor Maxwell's distinction denying
the existence of objects unobservable in principle, setting a
firm ontological basis for an enhanced naive empiricism, and you?

Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to discuss the
points I presented -- specifically -- and since you called
them irrelevant and snipped them, also claiming that I wanted
somehow to defeat you, it seems you have a fear of being
"defeated." I wonder, is this insistence on quantification,
proof and triumph an indication of some pathology on your
part? A need to be hard and penetrating and on
top of the argument? If that is the case, then I'd say, Jon,
you need to abandon Usenet for a while, get your meat
washed, and leave the discussion of photography to those
with background, training and mental agility ... beeyotch.