Quote:
Quote by: rez  Get with it everybody. Rocketships and Computers were imagined ideas constructed with the clues given by reality. It was the explanations that were given that enabled people to physically construct a machine that could process numbers. It is about taking something not found in nature, and then later constructing something to perform a certain function.
************************************************
If that something is not found in nature where did you take it form? La La land?
************************************************
A good detective would also hunt for relevant information that may or may not have something to do with the case.
************************************************
True, he might want some info about what is on TV tonight. ( at least we can agree on one thing ).
************************************************
No, they chose the answer that actually came out to work the best. There were many scientists working on the explanation, each working together to come to an answer that actually WORKED. An answer that actually explained how to do something.
************************************************
That is a funny one, So they tested the landing gear on the moon's surface before they got to the moon or before they knew for sure how soft or hard the surface might be, is what you are saying?
************************************************
Someone is put in charge to oversee how the explanations are moving along. This objective is to try to make the complex turn out to be simple and easy flowing.
*************************************************
Doubt if his job discription was as simple as you make it sound. If they had two explanations then someone must pick out which one they should go by. Which is the point of your question, how would he pick the right explanation or rather, the right method to make the thing work the best.
**************************************************
"Is someone in charge of the universe" is a question. When you problem solve, you have to ask questions that are most relevant to the problem. So that means you have to know something that is relevant to the problem. What is most relevant to the problem that would lead you to such a question? What makes you think that comparing a rocketship to a universe is sensible?
***************************************************
First off the universe is not a poblem, nor is the exsistance of the universe a problem, so what is your problem with the universe? Love it or leave it. Why are making it a problem?
Why compare a rocketship to a universe? #1 - It has a self contained environment that had to be like the one in nature so that the user could survive. #2 - it has moving parts that must work in harmoney with other parts to create a funtional system that works much like our egosystem does.
*********************************************************
Wrong. Way wrong. The jury is going to make the selection based on what works.
******************************************************
Wrong wrong - the lawyers take turns selecting the jury not the jury.
****************************************************
When you say you have the goods, you deliver the goods. Simple as that. Are you suggesting people are unable to distinguish between what works and what does not work?
*****************************************************
What made you think that people did not know that the universe works? I never said that.
***************************************************
The best explanations explains what was set out to be explained.
This is nonsense. Investigation has found that humans are logical in nature, and no matter how artistic one is they are still logical. That is how things are processed in our brains.
****************************************************
Where did I say anything about art? However why do you think that we cannot explain things logically using art, people do it all the time?
*****************************************************
Stop thinking in your head that the explanation has to "please" people. No. The explanation has to explain something. The explanation is not suppose to appeal to people it is suppose to explain an event.
***************************************************
Is the person who wrote that rule book the Boss Man? Can I call him Moses?
If the explanations are not given to please the people who want to know then who do they please? What other purpose do they have? My cat could care less.
|
Read between the dotted lines to follow the debate above.
Well, you had fun attempting to take snipper shots at my explanations.
although you overlooked the totality of what I said. Your chopping block approch had a pre-bias desire to do your best to make your own points while overlookng the logic in my review of a situtation. Your theroy that everyone is born to be logical is not being well supported by the way you debated the concept that I related (which was just form one angle of my many vantage points of inspection). I suggest you go back to the Spock school of logic and do some more star trecking.