Re: AAT Theory
David L Burkhead (r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu)
10 Oct 1995 16:28:45 GMT
In article <hubey.813297843@pegasus.montclair.edu> hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) writes:
>r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) writes:
>
>> Show me a measurement. Numbers "assigned" by some subjective
>>"gut feeling" are meaningless.
>
>You are leaving yourself quite open to attacks about your
>ignorance, but I won't push it. It will soon become obvious
>to many how much you know.
So show me the measurement. Do you have one? You won't push it
because the "ignorance" is in the other direction. I suspect it's
already quite apparent to most of the folk on this board who knows
what, and _you're_ not the one coming out on top.
>Let's stick to the facts. Problems of the type above that I
>mentioned occur in other fields. One of the fields in which
>some of these ideas have been put to use is in linguistics.
_You_ have the unmitigated gall to tell _me_ to stick to the
facts? _You_? They guy who feels free to make up anything he feels
like and call it a fact? GMAFB.
>The important thing is to be able to measure things and get a
>concept of distance. Similarity measures are important in fields
>in which we cannot select arbitrary units with which to measure
>the fundamental dimensions of physics.
>
>For mechanics we need L,T, and F (or M). For thermal stuff
>we need Temperature and for electro-magnetism we need another
>fundamental dimension, charge Q. The dimensional analysis
>that is used in the allomatric equations in which the
>volume/area ratio is a simple example.
>
>What is needed is more about things in which numbers will
>take the place of fuzzy bone-gazing. See my other posts
>on distance, similarity and analogical reasoning.
>
>Then I advise you to join the fuzzy logic newsgroup.
You _really_ think that dropping buzzwords, utterly irrelevant to
the topic at hand, strengthens your case?
>
>> Taht some people might have difficulty recognizing them is
>>immaterial. The _term_ has a precise meaning _in science_.
>
>It still boils down at the perceptual level finally to
>gazing at something. I doubt that the apple tree is defined
>via its chemical composition. It's the same problem but
>as usual your emotions have gotten a hold of you. That's OK.
>YOu'll get over it soon.
No, the apple tree is defined by it's lineage. It's defined by
characteristics that let one say "this is an apple tree" and "that is
not." And even if there's some crossbreed that might lead one to
wonder whether it's an apple or something else, that _still_ does not
mean that the term "fruit" is not precisely defined. Your attempts at
obfuscation and changing the topic do not alter that.
It's the same problem as usual--you are talking about things of
which you know little to nothing. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like
you'll _ever_ get over it, let alone soon.
>> The "giving latin names" crack is irrelevant and a cheap shot.
>
>It was a cheap shot but a well-deserved one for some people.
>And you belong to this group.
"Well-deserved" is a matter of opinion. If you consider people
calling you on errors of _fact_ (which you make constantly), as a
group deserving of cheap shots, then that says more about you then
about them.
If you put me in the group that you consider worthy of cheap
shots, then that is very high praise indeed. Thank you.
>PS. I didn't read the rest. It's too long and probably
>irrelevant. If you want to make a point, make it short.
That you don't read things is readily apparent. At least this
time you own up to it. As for irrelevant, you should know since you
are the king of the irrelevant post.
David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com
--
Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine
Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831
|