Bordering on being a slime bag?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Like it or not, the word 'prediction' in physics has two different
meanings that have to be distinguished carefully by context. The
first
is the ordinary notion of a sort of guess at future events, and the
second refers to any logical consequence of the postulates of a
physical theory, especially if they are empirically testable.

It is in this latter sense that theories can "predict" after the
fact,
and this bugs some people to hysteria.

Not only to show just how bad your education is, but how screwed up
your sense of logic
is, I went to the site which you recommended as the basis for your
position here,

Well, I guess there is a first time for everything.

You're wrong, though, to think that the site I directed you to is the
BASIS for my position. It was just supposed to be a reference for you
to actually learn something for a change. But there is never any
learning without an open mind.

I had already come to the conclusion that you were intellectually dishonest, but I didn't
have you pegged for an outright slime bag. You snipped the part of my post wherein I
explain myself, AND you fail to indicate that you snipped it.

Moreover, in response to my post wherein I showed the ridiculousness of your position that
predictions can be constructed after the fact, you sent me to a specific site in specific
response to my post. Now, when I show that this site very clearly adds to MY argument
that YOU're assertion is ridiculous, you say that you never meant to direct me there as
part of your position?

More intellectual lying. Moreover, you fail, to address the actual subject matter. Are
you still claiming, despite the fact that your own source site says otherwise, that
predictions can be made after the fact?

And here's the part of my post which, like a slime bag, you snipped.:

Not only to show just how bad your education is, but how screwed up your sense of logic
is, I went to the site which you recommended as the basis for your position here, and
here's the relevant except to which you directed me:

~~~~~~~~
Predictions consist of conditions and consequences.
In a prediction, the condition is If P and the consequence is then Q.
~~~~~~~~

IOW, the prediction contains a description of the conditions, and a description of the
consequences if the conditions are met.

IOW, in the prediction: *If I release this rock I'm holding above the ground, it will
fall to the ground*, the condition is my holding of the rock above the ground, and the
consequence is it falling to the ground.

Certainly, the author could've written it more descriptively, and used the word
*description*, but only for those with minimal intelligence. The rest of us fully
understand that a prediction is just an intellectual concept and *consists* of nothing but
descriptions in the first place. To say that *Predictions consist of [descriptions] of
conditions and [descriptions] of consequences* would be virtually redundant.

And so, especially upon this basis, for you to come to the conclusion that theories can
*predict* after the fact is, in fact, hysterical. With reasoning and logic like you've
shown in this case, as well as in the case where you quote Infeld, it's no wonder your
view of the scientific method is so screwed up.