ant wrote:You're aware, I'm sure, that science is not practiced in a vacuum.
My general point was about the constant backtracking and side-stepping of the assertions made in many threads. Some recent ones, this one, too are superb examples. I even quoted how twice science as used as a word in two opposite semantics, and also referred to two other threads with even formalising a logical relationship that was violated and then told not to lecture someone with self-expressed superior command of methodology (which somehow didn't stop one from violating basic tenets of rational methods).
And coming to the point? as demonstrated countless times, the point that starts a discourse is being dishonestly denied and side-stepped continuously, and this has been a consistent pattern in all these threads...
But so be it: my specifics then on this topic is that we are again vastly side-stepping with the typical lack of honesty the central claim and the central motivation.
This is not about particle physics vs. a Sagan-Drake formula - if it had been, there would not be such a flawed title of the thread.
If you ask why flawed (don't have to, as it is just one of many threads opened with not provocative, but simply wrong assertions... there is a big difference between the two):
- what came to predict one and the other element in the thread title?
- therefore what is the fundamental difference between the two predictions (way simpler than the area of science they came from)?
- therefore how obviously false analogy is being made again?
If I try in another way: how long was the Earth flat in absence of confirmation of the alternative theory? What would have been the criterion for a time limit?
Again, as quoted before and let's stop having short term memory loss: "science" and science was used in two quoted sentences, eminently showing the vehemently denied semantic intent.
Namely, the above stated nonsensical matter of time limit is suggested from the start as a criterion to throw out not the theories but science itself. As mentioned before, it is unfortunate that while vehemently denying the real intent, self-contradictive overcompensating remarks escape in sarcastic or sometimes serious-sounding sentences.
My favourite still remains the other thread where Sagan's "mantra" that states a (above formulaically summarised) basic logical rule is said to be something some "believe in".
Such deliberate self-defeating mixing of the subjective and objective is superbly entertaining, only if it were not constantly denied and obfuscated as soon as anyone points it out - here and in many other threads.
