Jump to content
Science Forums

The Problem with Science


Spiked Blood

Recommended Posts

Etymology sheds the light of history on words; however, it often has little bearing on current usage as most people pay little attention to what their elders meant.
But that was my point!

 

Wasn't it?

 

"professionals in the subject area" have simply shifted their diagnostic name from a politically unacceptable "idiot savant" to the new "autistic savant".
Now doesn't that fall into your own point above? Apart from the fact that I hadn't understood the expression "idiot savant" to have been a clinical term, it certainly isn't right to call an autistic person an idiot, according to the current acception. It is simply an amusing observation that (strictly) the term's etymus could well be applied.

 

In any case, I think that your troubles with being understood by others are often due to your own use of language (rather than using terms in the manner people "normally"(!?!) mean them). I do not mean that you need to talk the way today's kids talk, I would never confuse 'fewer' with 'führer' nor pronounce them similarly, but you do seem to say things in your own way and make the excuse that language is ambiguous anyway, which gets you nowhere. While we may pay attention to "what our elders meant", it's harder to keep track of what you mean.

 

The story of your wife is sadly amusing and I agree that most MDs aren't a genius (in that case they could at least have advised vitamin C and counterindicated anything that works against it) but much could be said about some of your remarks in the story. Apparently 'idiopathic' simply indicates the affliction as having an unkown cause because it depends on very individual things. When the doctor said "nothing to do with stress" he obviously could have only meant "no physiological causal link" and just as obviously couldn't have known your wife's idio(!)synchrasy of gobbling aspirins when under stress, certainly not without being told of it. Apart from the wisdom of eating them like candies, for any reason, a better doctor might have inquired her about any personal things in relation to the stress (whether dietary habits or what). It's so easy to criticize, but diagnosis is not always an easy feat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else sense a drift in topic? Excellent discussion on Savantism, but hardly to the point of the problem of science. I for one liked the challenge laid out by DocDick.

 

If I was in the room and could see the flashing light, or flash my light, there would be no basis for understanding. I may discover responses that happen when I flash my light. And I may discover patterns in the flashes that happen regardless of if I flash my light. But the capacity to give menaing to my flashes or take meaning from the incoming flashes would never go beyond hopeful speculation. I could flash what I think is "apple" and the response would be "4", because my "apple is "2 + 2" on the other side, but I would read "4" as "wash basin". Possibly mathmatics, as that could be universal. But meanings beyond the raw numbers would be based on luck with very long odds.

 

I tried to make a similar point in my post "Invisible Universe". Dick, you may have inspired me to follow up on the first installment of that. :naughty:

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True that the topic had drifted, but that happens with Dick around!

 

:hihi:

 

Fundamentally, this is the problem solved by the millions of children born every year. Roughly, they seem to manage to decode the signals they get into something that makes sense to them in around a year. I would set that at being equivalent to something considerably less than ten^twenty flashes of that light.
Now the child's brain is definitely not a tabula rasa. Without being hard-wired to some extent, visual stimulae for instance would never get sorted out into shapes, sizes and positions. Instead a baby very soon gathers how to turn its head and eyes toward whichever object most catches its attention. A child has instincts. There are many things that would be less than on topic to detail in this thread, which indicate that we aren't born tabula rasa at all. Much of our reaction to stimulae are genetically influenced. Therefore, a serious analysis must consider evolution, starting since the first organisms were able to have any whatsoever reaction to any of the things that were happening to them.

 

BTW, a fact from information theory. The more information a message contains, the more it will be random to who doesn't know the code. This for instance allowed cryptanalysts such as Turing to crack early encryptions that were on an essentially letter-by-letter basis. The sequence of letters of text in a given language can't be just any of the [math]\norm 26^n[/math] combinations because a single language, with its limited lexicon, is limited in the possible info for a given length of n letters. Each language turns out to have a characteristic hystogram and, if n is many times longer than the key length (let's call it k), statistical analysis (a Fourier transform) can see the value of k and at that point the map for each position in the key can be determined by fitting the hystogram of the corresponding subset with that of the language.

 

Therefore, if the German language hadn't a severe limit on the possible info per text length (i. e. if it had a flat hystogram), Turing would never have been cracking those rudimentary codes. An increased k/n ratio is equivalent to an increased possible info content per length, from the point of view of who doesn't know the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could flash what I think is "apple" and the response would be "4", because my "apple is "2 + 2" on the other side, but I would read "4" as "wash basin". Possibly mathematics, as that could be universal. But meanings beyond the raw numbers would be based on luck with very long odds.

 

I tried to make a similar point in my post "Invisible Universe". Dick, you may have inspired me to follow up on the first installment of that. :)

You may be very close to comprehending what I am talking about. I am not (and I will repeat that- "not") making a point. What I am pointing out is that we are, when we come into this world as a fertilized egg (which by the way, is itself a hypothesis based on that luck with long odds) we face exactly that problem. And we (all of us) presume that what our subconscious has passed to us as a solution is the "one and only possible" solution. But what is of real importance here is that the problem can be solved. I am not claiming my solution is the only solution (or even the solution anyone's subconscious has achieved) but rather that it is "a solution" and as such yields insights into the interpretation of such solutions.

 

Go read my essay on the definition of "An Explanation" again carefully. The central issue there is that any explanation must essentially be a method of establishing expectations as to what patterns we will find in that flashing light are consistent with the flashing patterns we have already seen. It is a real, well defined problem which can be solved! And I have discovered the beginnings of that solution.

 

Think of my attack in this way: (Under the presumption that you understand mathematics which, by the way Feynman held was the distilled essence of logic.) First, collect sequences of flashing lights as binary numbers (corresponding to the numbers "x" that I refer to). Then collect volumes of those numbers as lists. Then paste those lists on the wall of a long hall (that would be an imaginary mental hall :cup: ). Now, look over the lists (you have essentially an infinite amount of imaginary space and time) and see if you can make sense of them (taking time out occasionally to post a new list as it becomes available).

 

Now, the first question is, what is it that convinces us that we know what those lists represent? Isn't that very closely related to how much those new lists surprise us? The more reasonable (or expected) the new lists become is a direct feed back to our belief that we understand what the lists represent. True or false? So the real issue is, given a hypothetical list (any hypothetical list at all), if we understood the source of the sequence of flashing lights we could estimate the probability that the hypothetical list belongs in the collection in the hall. If we have confidence in our answer to that question, we apparently believe we understand the source of the lists. True or false?

 

Now the lists we already have are fixed and cannot be changed so the only unknowns here are the new lists. So let me make definition number one, which I will call "time": the "past" consists of the lists we have, the "present" is the list we are now posting and the "future" consists of the lists yet to be. Since the number of lists is finite, they can be ordered so let us attach an arbitrary index "t" to each list. One of those lists is exactly what I refer to as B(t) and the entire collection is what I refer to as C.

 

Now the fundamental question we need to answer becomes, given any hypothetical list, what is the probability that the list belongs in the hall? The answer is easy (as presented) all we have to do is look through the list of numbers we have and see if that list occurs. The answer is, how many times did that list occur compared to the number of lists we have? But maybe the list never occurred. Does that mean that the list doesn't belong in the hall? Well of course not, we haven't seen all the lists so the problem is a little more complex than that. Perhaps we should say "how many times should we expect that list to occur compared to the number of lists we have" at least that brings up the issue of similarity of lists but I will let that go for the moment.

 

So what we are really looking for is a "function". The argument of the function is to be a hypothetical list (B(t) ) and the result of the function is to be the probability the list belongs in the hall. If we can find a function which is totally consistent with all lists we already have (i.e., the past, presumed to be quite an extensive test bed) then it is quite reasonable to expect that function to continue to be somewhat consistent as we acquire new lists. Possession of such a function would pretty well satisfy the problem of "understanding the source of those flashes". True or false? (Or put it another way, do you think you could you come up with such a function without understanding the source?)

 

Now, just to make life easy, let me refer to "the source of those flashes" as "reality" or A (just a savings of words really). I have already defined the past, present and future in terms of this parameter "t" which I call time. If my solution (that function I am searching for) depends on "t" then one of two possibilities must be true. Either the solution itself depends on exactly "when" I start collecting that list or the value of "t" must be implicitly embedded in the lists themselves.

 

Since, (if the solution of the problem depends upon when I start to solve it, I certainly cannot have found a valid general solution), the value of t has to be embedded in the lists themselves. That means that given any specific list, (if we have indeed found a valid solution) we must be able to deduce, from the list itself, its appropriate position in reference to the parameter t. Given an historical list (one from the known past) the issue seems straight forward: all we do is proceed down the hall and find that list. The time of the list is simply its position in the hall. That is fine so long as all the lists are different; however, what do we do if some lists occur more than once? What value of "t" do we assign to it?

 

The only solution to this difficulty that I can come up with is to introduce information not contained in the flashing lights themselves: i.e., presume that information exists which is not available to me. That is the very beginning of my set D (what is presumed to exist; just pick some numbers you like and stick them on those identical lists). A little thought ought to convince you that such a process easily produces a complete set of unique lists. But, once you have begun to add fictitious data (i.e., assume possibilities outside what the problem presents) what is there to stop you from adding more? The only logical requirement is that the function you are looking for must also predict these hypothesized factors.

 

If you have any familiarity with mathematics at all, you should understand that there exist an infinite number of functions which will perfectly fulfill the requirements laid out here. A simple power series fit to the known data works just fine except for the fact that there is one for every possible B(t) to be added to the list. Which one should one choose?

 

That is where my F=0 rule arises. I have shown that, for any given C (any collection of B(t) ) there exists a set D together with my F=0 which will make the distribution C the only possibility. That's nothing more than a mechanical fact.

 

You need to add but one thing to the mix thus presented: the fundamental shift symmetries well discussed in modern physics. When you do that, it is quite clear that the picture requires the desired probability function to obey my fundamental equation. So, you are left with but one problem: any coherent solution to your problem must be a solution to my fundamental equation. That's a rather trivial fact and pretty worthless as it stands because the equation is a many body equation and not directly soluble by any means I am aware of.

 

I discovered that equation long ago and I knew it for over five years before I managed to drag out the first solution. In order to solve it you must first convert it into a one body equation. That can only be done by presuming the solutions to everything but the one variable of interest are known; at least to the extent of their impact on that single element. This is not far at all from the common approach of professional science; you cannot even discuss an experiment without presuming the existence of some collection of entities and what are those entities if not presumed partial solutions to the problem of explaining reality.

 

Just think about it a little; that's all I ask.

Now the child's brain is definitely not a tabula rasa. Without being hard-wired to some extent, visusl stimulae for instance would never get sorted out into shapes, sizes and positions.
Now exactly what part of that do you know for a fact and what part is based on the presumption that your world view is valid? You are either going to say God created that ability or it arose in an earlier one celled entity. Or if not a one celled entity, a complex molecule. You cannot get rid of the problem by saying it was already solved! Even with God, you need to explain how God solved it.

 

I don't think Qfwfq has an inkling of what I am talking about. And it's too bad because he apparently is one of the few people here who has the training to follow the math. That seems to be the problem I have always had: all the educated people I have met are idiot savants and can't think their way out of a paper bag.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doctordic,

 

I have benn following your posts on this thread, and also trying to comprehend what you may be saying. I think from your last post I have come closer to an understanding. Let me articulate my understanding of what you have written.

 

You are saying:

 

First, collect sequences of flashing lights as binary numbers (corresponding to the numbers "x" that I refer to). Then collect volumes of those numbers as lists. Then paste those lists on the wall of a long hall (that would be an imaginary mental hall ).

 

that all the valid observations of all must be documented.

 

I think I have written much more then I intended to! I hope you will respond :)

 

Then you are saying

 

Now, look over the lists (you have essentially an infinite amount of imaginary space and time) and see if you can make sense of them (taking time out occasionally to post a new list as it becomes available).

 

That is analyze that information in the light of your present knowledge, that is theories, hypothesises and laws.

 

Next you are asseting

 

So let me make definition number one, which I will call "time": the "past" consists of the lists we have, the "present" is the list we are now posting and the "future" consists of the lists yet to be. Since the number of lists is finite, they can be ordered so let us attach an arbitrary index "t" to each list. One of those lists is exactly what I refer to as B(t) and the entire collection is what I refer to as C.

 

Call all the past observations as the past, the present observations as present and the observations that are yet to be made as future time.

 

Your next step which is a prescription for further knowledge is

 

Now the fundamental question we need to answer becomes, given any hypothetical list, what is the probability that the list belongs in the hall? The answer is easy (as presented) all we have to do is look through the list of numbers we have and see if that list occurs.

 

Mark the word number, (I have intentionally highlighted it) Do you mean that all observations and experiences can be digitized?

 

I have serious doubts about this statement. All the human knowledge, incidentally does not belong to numerical physics. There is a large amount of knowledge in the realm of chemistry and biology that can not be imagined to be digitized in the forseeable future. There are millions of kinds of molecules, that are permutations and combinations of a variable number of atoms, that can undergo umpteen transformations. Do you think all this information can be digitized?

 

Even if it were possible, the next level is even more daunting. In response to a thread initiate by me asking how many biological species have been discovered so far, a response that was posted by our esteemed friend Boerseun puts the number to be close to several million. Now consider the interaction of these species with the molecules around them, how can you imagine ever to digitize (document) all this information?

 

Your next assertion is even more unrealistic

 

what is it that convinces us that we know what those lists represent? Isn't that very closely related to how much those new lists surprise us? The more reasonable (or expected) the new lists become is a direct feed back to our belief that we understand what the lists represent. True or false? So the real issue is, given a hypothetical list (any hypothetical list at all), if we understood the source of the sequence of flashing lights we could estimate the probability that the hypothetical list belongs in the collection in the hall. If we have confidence in our answer to that question, we apparently believe we understand the source of the lists. True or false?

 

You are presumably under the impression that there is a unique reality, that is to be explored and understood. But I believe that there can be a lots of variation between the perceptions of different individuals. That is reality is not objective, it is subjective. Because the way each one of us perceives a given situation depends on his/her constitution, knowledge and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is a rational filter of the mind that allows us to understand the world around us. An animal sees a flower, but because it lacks this rational filter is not able to full understand what it is seeing. Its filter is limited to the rational assessment of food or not.

 

The thing about science, that many fail to see, is that it is a work in progress. The science filter is constantly being polished to higher and higher quality as time goes on. But it is not perfect optics. Sometimes, new understanding comes along that polishes the filter so fine that fine cracks begin to appear on other aspects of the filter. If the goal is a perfect filter, one can try to fill in the cracks. But this creates abberations in the filter, although it maintains the looking glass of the past.

 

A good example is glass cast in the 1940's being polished with 2006 techniques will never produce a 2006 lense.

 

The more drastic solution is to melt the filter down and recast it into a better block of glass that can compliment the latest fine polishing techiques. This rarely occurs even if it is the best way to progress toward perfection. Science is still human and is therefore not only objective, but also has a range of built in subjectivity, due to lack of a good starting block of glass.

 

Physics is sort of interesting in that the original filter was a nice lense. Now there are many conflicting theories in particle physics. This is sort of polishing the lenses into a dimpled shape to compensate for haivng to use an old lense casting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An animal sees a flower, but because it lacks this rational filter is not able to full understand what it is seeing. Its filter is limited to the rational assessment of food or not.

Sorry. No way man. You impose inaccurate distinctions between humans and animals. We're all animals, and I can think of plenty that look at objects as more than "food/not food."

 

A dog in a rain storm will find comfort in a house. A cat when cold will look for a blanket, or a radiator. A bird will sense the wind and just enjoy the feeling of the breeze through it's feathers... And those are just the easy counter examples to your point. There are others. :D

 

The thing about science, that many fail to see, is that it is a work in progress. The science filter is constantly being polished to higher and higher quality as time goes on. But it is not perfect optics. Sometimes, new understanding comes along that polishes the filter so fine that fine cracks begin to appear on other aspects of the filter.

You're right, sort of... B) It's more appropriately the output resulting from individuals who follow the scientific method that is being ever polished and progressing, not really "science" itself. This may be more of a semantic issue though. Your words seemed to suggest the analogy that science is like a knife that is being sharped, however, science is really more a method for using that knife.

 

 

Physics is sort of interesting in that the original filter was a nice lense. Now there are many conflicting theories in particle physics. This is sort of polishing the lenses into a dimpled shape to compensate for haivng to use an old lense casting.

I don't know why, but I kind of like this analogy. :D Although it's certainly not limited to physics alone. Just remember, we can always throw "the old lense casting" away when a better one is presented.

 

 

Cheers. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be very close to comprehending what I am talking about. I am not (and I will repeat that- "not") making a point. What I am pointing out is that we are, when we come into this world as a fertilized egg (which by the way, is itself a hypothesis based on that luck with long odds) we face exactly that problem. And we (all of us) presume that what our subconscious has passed to us as a solution is the "one and only possible" solution. But what is of real importance here is that the problem can be solved.

You lost me when you got to the math Dick.

 

I think you have the correct idea, but your analogy of the baby is incorrect. What the flashing light lacks is any context at all. The entirety of the conversation is flashing a light. Without other clues as to context of the flashing you could not get past math. And even then interpreting operators would be tricky.

 

A baby has wide spectrum sensory inputs, both internal and external. Experimentation to understand cause and effect at all ages (including pre-natal). And the reasoning power to corrolate all of these inputs into specific understandings of reality that enable survival and thriving.

 

I don't see that you can parallel the baby with the binary light. And that is the reason that AI struggles. intelligence is not the ability to understand yes and no. Intelligence is the ability to take thousands of maybes and make a good choice. Science attempts to isolate conditions to calrify the roles of the maybes and provide predictibility and repeatability.

 

I think you are on the right track, but need at different tack.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "world view" is a tool by use of which humans are able to interact with their environment, if humans successfully manage this interaction in what sense is the validity of the world view being questioned?
It isn’t the validity of the world view which is being questioned; it is the problem “how can one go about solving the problem of generating useable world view starting with absolutely no defined information. And, just as an aside, do you really believe your “world view” is, without any possibility of error, “valid”? If so I would suggest you are a pretty closed minded person.
Mark the word number, (I have intentionally highlighted it) Do you mean that all observations and experiences can be digitized?
Not exactly, I mean that any reference to anything can be digitized.
You are presumably under the impression that there is a unique reality, that is to be explored and understood.
No, I am presuming that your world view is generated from the information available to you; quite a different matter.
You lost me when you got to the math Dick.
I am sorry about that.
I think you have the correct idea, but your analogy of the baby is incorrect. What the flashing light lacks is any context at all. The entirety of the conversation is flashing a light. Without other clues as to context of the flashing you could not get past math. And even then interpreting operators would be tricky.

 

A baby has wide spectrum sensory inputs, both internal and external. Experimentation to understand cause and effect at all ages (including pre-natal). And the reasoning power to corrolate all of these inputs into specific understandings of reality that enable survival and thriving.

I am sorry but you are making exactly the same mistake Qfwfq insists on making. Using “buzzwords” to imply nothing worth thinking about is going on. It is no more than refusal to even consider the fact that a problem might exist here. What you don’t seem to realize is the fact that he (and you) are essentially stating, as fact, that a stem cell knows that information being passed from a neighboring cell comes from the retina of an eye even before it metamorphoses into an optic nerve cell (i.e., that the definition of the information already exists before the transmission mechanism exists). So you want the definitions to be embedded in the unfertilized egg? Or maybe you want the definitions embedded in the DNA, or maybe in the first complex organic molecule to come into existence. Push it back as far as you want; either the problem must be solved or you are a creationist. If you are a creationist, there is no problem; god created it that way. But, in that case, I have no idea why you are talking to me.

 

What ever the universe is, our experience with it begins with undefined information and, the elements of that "undefined information" can certainly be represented by a flashing light.

I don't see that you can parallel the baby with the binary light. And that is the reason that AI struggles.
AI struggles because of its utter refusal to recognize that it is exactly the problem I am presenting which must be solved. An intelligent machine must be able to take a stream of totally undefined information and come up with a mental model of that information (with absolutely no defined structure for the information itself). All the AI researchers are trying to figure out a way of defining the data stream so that the computer can emulate an intelligent mind. The central issue (and the one I have solved) is, how can one model arbitrary undefined information so that decent judgments of future expectation for that information stream can be achieved (i.e., absolutely no a-priori information).
I think you are on the right track, but need a different tack.
Well, since I am the one who succeeded in solving the problem, I'll tell you what; you guys can try a different tack and we will see how long it takes. (I suspect I'll be long dead before you find success.) :shrug:

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central issue (and the one I have solved) is, how can one model arbitrary undefined information so that decent judgments of future expectation for that information stream can be achieved (i.e., absolutely no a-priori information).

Neo: I know kung-fu.

Morpheus: Show me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor dick, thank you for demonstrating everything that used to be wrong with my posting style. Your constant use of the authority fallacy (Doctordick: "X is true" despite the fact that X is already being debated... as if Doctordick's opinion had some signifigance to a third party beyond the logical value of any arguments supporting this belief) in addition to all the emotional responses to what would otherwise be an objective debate no doubt become quite tiresome for anyone to read.

 

I would like to make some suggestions for you about debate in general. First of all, noone knows what the heck you are talking about half the time not because they are stupid but because you are bad at communicating your ideas. Not that communicating complex ideas is an easy thing to do... You need to step away from your mental meanderings long enough to teach yourself how to A) get people to want to read what you have to say, B) Write what you say to create an understanding of your claims for someone who doesn't already understand them.

 

Anyways I have a model of the human mind that I use to support ethics arguments that looks like it might have some similarities to yours, but why you need math to define such a model is beyond me.

 

One attack people often used (Both you and qf are alluding to this to some extent) against models used to define the human mind is that there must be great computational power and complicated calculations being made behind the scenes in order to make sense out of all the stimulae experienced by a human being.

 

However with clever use of deductive reasoning, you can find many many tricks to simplify any processing that would need to be done to make sense out of the world around you. For instance everything seen can be composed of the same geometric shapes (2d shapes), and those shapes will change in the same ways when the object they compose is rotated in various ways. Upon seeing these shapes rotated a number of times, one would only need to apply the same type of changes to predict what another shape would look like after being rotated. If there was a function used to predict what a given shape would look like when the object was rotated, it wouldn't need to be a continuous function in someone's mind. After all you can only even see differences from an object being rotated above a certain level of precision. I think its fairly easy to understand and communicate a model of the human mind that explains just about everything that people do (and one should be able to reproduce it with a computer given the right technology is available), although it might not have been easy to create to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but you are making exactly the same mistake Qfwfq insists on making. Using “buzzwords” to imply nothing worth thinking about is going on.

Thank you for that, I think. You have managed to compliment me and discountme in a single swoop. There is plenty worth thinking about here, and I am trying to engage you in a discussion on the topic. I am hopeful that this can still happen.

It is no more than refusal to even consider the fact that a problem might exist here. What you don’t seem to realize is the fact that he (and you) are essentially stating, as fact, that a stem cell knows that information being passed from a neighboring cell comes from the retina of an eye even before it metamorphoses into an optic nerve cell (i.e., that the definition of the information already exists before the transmission mechanism exists). So you want the definitions to be embedded in the unfertilized egg? Or maybe you want the definitions embedded in the DNA, or maybe in the first complex organic molecule to come into existence. Push it back as far as you want; either the problem must be solved or you are a creationist. If you are a creationist, there is no problem; god created it that way. But, in that case, I have no idea why you are talking to me.

Cells on an individual basis have no comprehension. Cells as a collective, as a whole organism provide the tools for comprehension. But it is not a digital process. It is analog. And it is not just simply known, it is learned. A developing life form receives stimulus from the environment and begins the process of learning, corrolating, and turning the experience of the stimulus into meanings. Some creatures lead simple existances and are fairly "harded wired" - heavy on instinct. Others take the long road to understanding, like humans, but as a result are capable of much more abstract understanding based upon interpretation of stimulus.

 

I am not suggesting that understanding of stimulas is quick and easy. Quite the opposite. And your suggestion that I inferred such a meaning defies all logical extrapolation.

 

What ever the universe is, our experience with it begins with undefined information and, the elements of that "undefined information" can certainly be represented by a flashing light.

Binary is not the common denominator of all sensory input. If I am wrong then perhaps you could explain why.

 

Well, since I am the one who succeeded in solving the problem, I'll tell you what; you guys can try a different tack and we will see how long it takes. (I suspect I'll be long dead before you find success.) :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

Its a bet! I have to succeed at figuring this out before you die. Who should we have as the judge?

 

WAIT!!! I think I found an archive photo of you demonstrating the lesson in the classroom! From the looks of it I better start my research right away. :Glasses:

 

(having fun) Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to make some suggestions for you about debate in general. First of all, noone knows what the heck you are talking about half the time not because they are stupid but because you are bad at communicating your ideas. Not that communicating complex ideas is an easy thing to do... You need to step away from your mental meanderings long enough to teach yourself how to A) get people to want to read what you have to say, :Glasses: Write what you say to create an understanding of your claims for someone who doesn't already understand them.

 

Accommodating your suggestion would detract from Docdick's amusement and 50% of his points.

 

If you don't like him running circles(and squares and triangles...) around you, then perhaps you should learn how to run too.

 

"Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game":phones:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...