View Single Post
  #19  
Unread August 21st, 2006, 10:30 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

Quote:
Carey: Wait . . . I explained why you aren't qualified to argue about the relative merits of physics and biology.
Nice try Carey. As noted in Wiki:
Quote:
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.
Anyhoo, let’s try to finalize this thread with your next post. Again, as in times past, I think our discussion has been reasonably honest and rigorous (with an intermittent ad hominem type fallacy from time to time), and I think we’ve been reasonably consistent in how we see and explained our POVs, certainly more so than others here on this forum tend to be in some of their ramblings .

And, as I’ve opined b/f, where one stands on these issues seems to depend on how one sees the big picture. Some of us sees things as Roger Penrose—the eminently qualified Oxford mathematician and physicist, who recently also wrote The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 2005, “the most complete mathematical explanation of the universe yet published”—sees things: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." While the rest see things primarily as being random and/or “effectively random”; or perhaps blindly, mindlessly, algorithmically deterministic (essentially effectively random).

Really Carey, please consider buying Penrose’s book (and I know you’re probably already overloaded with stuff to read/consider)—it is undoubtedly the best book on physics and the best mathematical explanation of the universe ever written.

All the best,
Fred

Last edited by Fred H.; August 21st, 2006 at 12:20 PM.
Reply With Quote