- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
04 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo. I'm comparing blather with blather.
So let me get this straight. You're comparing the question of quiescent existentialism to the number of legs on insect sheep??
Interesting. A little bit Isaaac Asimov
Do not talk so flippantly about someone whose intellectual level you could not hope to reach. And have the decency to spell his name right.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueInteresting that you left out the word possibly. Asimov was alright but he was stilted in his percussions. Same as A.C.Clarke.
No. I'm comparing blather with blather.
Interesting. A little bit Isaaac Asimov
Do not talk so flippantly about someone whose intellectual level you could not hope to reach. And have the decency to spell his name right.
Richard
Shame, both brilliant writers.
edit. that's not true Asimov was genuinely inspirational.
I apologize, I never got around to reading many of his works. They were too.....machinated.
Instead I've been reading hyper-fiction like WeaveWorld and the PaintedMan, far more imaginative.
Chris.
You have still yet to disprove my theory. You can't do it because it's impossible. UNDISPROVABLE. That is the both the nature and shortcomings of science. Which is precisely my point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI need to have lunch, and I have some shopping to do. (among other things)
Interesting that you left out the word possibly. Asimov was alright but he was stilted in his percussions. Same as A.C.Clarke.
Shame, both brilliant writers.
edit. that's not true Asimov was genuinely inspirational.
I apologize, I never got around to reading many of his works. They were too.....machinated.
Instead I've been reading hyper-ficti ...[text shortened]... VABLE. That is the both the nature and shortcomings of science. Which is precisely my point.
However I am going to make some time this evening and start a new thread explaining
what science is, and how it works, and consequently why you are wrong.
You are making a very grandiose claim (that you can outdo science and improve on the
scientific method) and yet can't accurately describe what it is you are claiming to be able
to better.
It's like people who claim to be able to disprove evolution who can't accurate describe what
evolution is.
If you think you can do better than science, then ok, fine.
But you had better first understand what it is you think you can better.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSorry, just got done dealing with something that cropped up in RL, and now I really need some sleep.
I spent 4 years in hard-scientce and 'You're' gonna plan an afternoon barbeque to 'entertain me?'.
edit. OK, I'm in.
I will have to kick this off tomorrow instead.
I apologise for the delay.
