No Gary, I am not arguing for argument's sake.

The point is, in your statement on butterflies, you profess to know what a butterfly understands and what it does not understand. Since you could not possibly know that, the argument is invalid.

Many "scientific" statements are based along similar lines of reasoning.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 11, 2008, 08:05:49 PM
No Gary, I am not arguing for argument's sake.

The point is, in your statement on butterflies, you profess to know what a butterfly understands and what it does not understand. Since you could not possibly know that, the argument is invalid.

Many "scientific" statements are based along similar lines of reasoning.

Hans von Lieven

Hans

You have made  your point  very well  ......... but  probably not the point that you intended .

My point  about the butterfly  was not  about  knowing all that a butterfly  knows .......but I do know that a butterfly  doesn't  go to school   to learn about  the laws of nature .....it learns about them  from experience .   


As  you know my point was never  about the  exact knowledge of the butterfly ......it was just a the example that came  up   when  trying to  explain my concept .

I have no doubt that you uderstood  the  meaning of  my statement ...............but  chose to argue  a pointless  detail  rather than  let the whole  idea  go. 

The  problem here is not understanding  or even language .......it is ego .

I have no  reason to argue  with  someone that is willing to distort the  facts  to win an argument that is not even an argument .

I am done here

gary

  I have read this posting with most amusement , as I have run into this type of roadblock many times. Communicating ideas to another being, whether human or animal, usually is frustrating, However to take Einstein,  as an example, he changed language to support his theory of (flatulence) relativity. In doing so he set back physics a decade or two, while others figured out his theories were just stupid.
I realise this may not be popluar among most, but the truth needs to be said.
  In order to  change the mind set of the masses one must work with the masses. I will not say that over-unity is unrealistic, there are just not a whole lot of believers out there. When you make believers, over-unity is no longer necessary. If the idea is to save energy, or produce more energy from existing sources, then this your mission. Please do not change your ideas to fit the existing framework of communicating, it is foolish.
  When Newton 'discovered' gravity, he just gave it a name, or more to the point,described to the masses something they already knew, but were unable to explain to their bar buddies.
  If the idea of your "idea" is to explain, explain. If the idea is to name a new idea, name it. If the idea is to change the mind-set of the mases,so they will pay fealty to your new-found world changing idea, then go ahead, call it the fleasbanant roachkillerofalltime, or as I like to call all new inventions, attaboys.
Now I am just the house painter. So what do I know?
  I am at sdanielmcev@aol.com. All replies are welcome. Please use overunity as as the keyword.

  One more thing: when you elminate the impossible whatever remains, however improbable must be true. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

I believe that is...."When you eliminate the possible, than what you are left with is the impossible which is most likely true."

I am a big Conan Doyle fan you see.

Bill