On Oct 1, 8:12=A0am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > You've accused me of talking "as if" something were true. =A0
>
> Yes, specifically because you make flat assertions which
> you do not defend with other than flat assertions,
> ad-hominems and other unreliable measures.
>
I've taken quantum mechanics many times, including once from Steven
Weinberg. I don't think that most physicists understand quantum
mechanics any better than I do, and I've seen some amazingly bad math
done at the blackboard by nominally competent people.
Following Weinberg's arguments was not hard. In many cases, though,
the arguments rested on flat assertions for which I saw no
justification and for which Prof. Weinberg offered neither explanation
nor apology. I assumed that there were things that I was expected to
understand but just didn't. I got an A in the course, anyway.
When you or others here see something that puzzles you, your first
instinct is to attack: it's incomprehensible, or you're making
personal arguments, or something--just as long as it doesn't depend on
your understanding what is being said to you.
> > I wonder if there even is such a thing as the truth and,
> > in any case, I don't think I've discovered it.
>
> Wow! =A0This is the first sign I've seen from you of any doubt.
>
Because you understand almost nothing about me, you fill in the
enormous voids with your own fantasies and accusations. Your
constantly accusing me of making personal attacks is simply laughable.
> > I do think I've figured out a few things that you with your
> > "logic" aren't even aware of.
>
> Perhaps. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" [Cowper]
> You might be right, if only on a random basis. =A0However,
> the absence of sup****ting facts and argumentation make
> your statements unreliable and improbable.
>
Your readiness to belittle is mind-boggling. People much smarter and
much more careful than I have thought deeply about the nature of
mathematical truth. The results of their inquiries are troubling, to
say the least.
That's without even touching the problematical nature of psychological
truth (what people believe to be true, and how) and even of reality
itself.
> > Then you learned nothing from it about the central character
> > in the movie. =A0In some respects the movie is pure fantasy:
> > MIT and therapy are both inaccurately ****trayed. =A0On the
> > other hand, the writers clearly understood what made Will
> > Hunting tick much better than you do.
>
> What is to learn? =A0This is pure fiction carefully and
> commercially crafted to entertain. =A0Following the common
> "Cinderella" theme of goodness overcoming adversity.
> Not even "based on a true story", it doesn't even rise
> to the level of anecdotal evidence.
>
If you don't see the point, the best thing to do is just to admit that
you don't see the point.
> > In particular, they understood how childhood abuse had
> > shaped him into the maladaptively combative adult he became.
>
> No. =A0The writers (Damon & Affleck) wrote a story their
> audience would like. =A0Of course, since it isn't totally
> impossible, it might happen.
>
Once again, Robert, you claim knowledge in an area where you have
none.
> >> > If I don't entertain or amuse, then don't bother with me.
> >> <shudder>I do not look for entertainment or amusement from you!
> > Then don't bother with me.
>
> More flat assertions. =A0I can choose why I deal with you.
>
Assertion? Those sentences are both imperatives.
> >> > *Now* you have been patronized.
> >> Really, I don't feel it.
> > Small wonder. =A0You are very well defended, and I'm not a therapist.
>
> Who is defending me? =A0Insults do not much bother me: =A0either
> they are true or they are untrue. =A0If they are true, then saying
> it changes nothing except to alert me to the possibility I
> might wish to change. =A0If they are untrue, then it just reveals
> the carelessness of the utterer. =A0I'm not insecure about what
> bystanders think.
>
You are defending yourself. The workings of your ego are so complete
that you can no longer even imagine the extent to which you deceive
yourself about who you are and how much you don't understand. You
don't feel the impact of the insults because, no matter how
devastatingly worded, your mind is arranged not to hear them.
Robert.
|
