"Tetractys" wrote in news:nOGdnWH-
:

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

If that is true,

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

-snip-

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

You
are assuming your conclusion.

Where's your evidence of that?

... 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. So... your statement there is rather silly.

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

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

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

-snip invalid examples-

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*
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.

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.

-snip more invalid examples-

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.
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.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet