Wagler's evasiveness

[Jim McGinn]

Richard Wagler <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote

> Nonsense. We don't, as is your fashion, assert certainty
> where there is absolutely none.

So, let me get this straight. You criticize me for being
confident about the validity of my hypothesis and at one and
the same time you admit that you cannot find anything
problematic about it. I'm sorry but this seems irrational. If
you can't find anything problematic with it then why are you
not encouraging me to be even more confident?

Jim

[Richard Wa]

Jim McGinn wrote:

> Richard Wagler <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote
>
> > Nonsense. We don't, as is your fashion, assert certainty
> > where there is absolutely none.
>
> So, let me get this straight. You criticize me for being
> confident about the validity of my hypothesis and at one and
> the same time you admit that you cannot find anything
> problematic about it. I'm sorry but this seems irrational.
> If you can't find anything problematic with it then why are
> you not encouraging me to be even more confident?
>
> Jim

Just how dense are you? You cannot support to any degree your
conclusions about the social life of eight million year old
a'piths. This is very problematic. And what's the latest
version? Hundreds of a'piths defending city-size blocs of
forest against bands of marauding impalas? If you want to say
that this stuff can be postulated with absolute certainty go
ahead. It's a free country. Be as daft as you like. Just don't
do it in the streets. You'll frighten the horses.

Rick Wagler

[Jim McGinn]

Richard Wagler <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote

> > > Nonsense. We don't, as is your fashion, assert certainty
> > > where there is absolutely none.
> >
> > So, let me get this straight. You criticize me for being
> > confident about the validity of my hypothesis and at one
> > and the same time you admit that you cannot find anything
> > problematic about it. I'm sorry but this seems irrational.
> > If you can't find anything problematic with it then why
> > are you not encouraging me to be even more confident?
> >
> > Jim
>
> Just how dense are you? You cannot support to any degree
> your conclusions about the social life of eight million year
> old a'piths.

I already have supported it, and you were unable to
dispute it.

> This is very problematic.

Ha, you bozo. You can't specify even one problem or
reservation with my hypothesis. I mean, come on Rick. Who do
you think is going to be dumb enough to take you seriously.
Surely if my hypothesis was, as you indicate, "very
problematic," then you should have no trouble specifying just
one of the problems. Just one! Well, what are you waiting for?
(I suppose you are like Gerrit and think that if it can't be
found in a textbook or a journal then it must be wrong.)

> And what's the latest version? Hundreds of a'piths defending
> city-size blocs of forest against bands of marauding
> impalas?

Impalas and any and all species that might compete with them
for finite, seasonally scarce, resources. (And the "city-size
blocs of forest," part is not, "the latest version." This has
been part of my hypothesis all along--long before I started
posting on SAP. [The rock throwing against other species part
is somewhat new--a little bit more than a year now]).

> If you want to say that this stuff can be postulated with
> absolute certainty go ahead.

I don't recall ever stating anything along the lines of,
"absolute certainty." These are your words. Maybe it's the
fact that it all fits so well with the evidence that gives you
the impression--which I don't deny--that I am very confident
about this hypothesis.

I'm still perplexed as to how you can criticize me for being
confident about the validity of my hypothesis and at one and
the same time you admit that you cannot find anything
problematic about it. If you can't find anything problematic
with it then why are you not encouraging me to be even more
confident? This seems irrational, childish, and, worst of all,
begrudging.

Jim

[Jim McGinn]

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:<ac6a5059.0307210818.70e3e9e7@posting.google.com>...
> Richard Wagler <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote
>
> > > > Nonsense. We don't, as is your fashion, assert
> > > > certainty where there is absolutely none.
> > >
> > > So, let me get this straight. You criticize me for being
> > > confident about the validity of my hypothesis and at one
> > > and the same time you admit that you cannot find
> > > anything problematic about it. I'm sorry but this seems
> > > irrational. If you can't find anything problematic with
> > > it then why are you not encouraging me to be even more
> > > confident?
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > Just how dense are you? You cannot support to any degree
> > your conclusions about the social life of eight million
> > year old a'piths.
>
> I already have supported it, and you were unable to
> dispute it.
>
> > This is very problematic.
>
> Ha, you bozo. You can't specify even one problem or
> reservation with my hypothesis. I mean, come on Rick. Who do
> you think is going to be dumb enough to take you seriously.
> Surely if my hypothesis was, as you indicate, "very
> problematic," then you should have no trouble specifying
> just one of the problems. Just one! Well, what are you
> waiting for? (I suppose you are like Gerrit and think that
> if it can't be found in a textbook or a journal then it must
> be wrong.)
>
> > And what's the latest version? Hundreds of a'piths
> > defending city-size blocs of forest against bands of
> > marauding impalas?
>
> Impalas and any and all species that might compete with them
> for finite, seasonally scarce, resources. (And the
> "city-size blocs of forest," part is not, "the latest
> version." This has been part of my hypothesis all
> along--long before I started posting on SAP. [The rock
> throwing against other species part is somewhat new--a
> little bit more than a year now]).
>
> > If you want to say that this stuff can be postulated with
> > absolute certainty go ahead.
>
> I don't recall ever stating anything along the lines of,
> "absolute certainty." These are your words. Maybe it's the
> fact that it all fits so well with the evidence that gives
> you the impression--which I don't deny--that I am very
> confident about this hypothesis.
>
> I'm still perplexed as to how you can criticize me for being
> confident about the validity of my hypothesis and at one and
> the same time you admit that you cannot find anything
> problematic about it. If you can't find anything problematic
> with it then why are you not encouraging me to be even more
> confident? This seems irrational, childish, and, worst of
> all, begrudging.

What's the problem Wagler?

Jim

[Firstjois]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...

Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
evasive with you, think there is a reason for this? I'm
concerned.

Jois

[Jim McGinn]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<GvudnWDjF7v7dtqiU-KYgg@comcast.com>...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
>
> Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
> evasive with you, think there is a reason for this?

Lack of appreciation for standard scientific methods.

I'm concerned.
>
> Jois

[Jim McGinn]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<GvudnWDjF7v7dtqiU-KYgg@comcast.com>...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
>
> Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
> evasive with you, think there is a reason for this?

www.everreader.com/shak2.htm

Kuhn says that specialists are usually committed to a
particular paradigm, to the paradigm that guides research in
their field. Since specialists spend their lives working
within a certain paradigm, they're slow to reject that
paradigm, and embrace a new paradigm. As Kuhn says, normal
science "often suppresses fundamental novelties because they
are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments."[3] Since
specialists are committed to a certain paradigm, they don't
question that paradigm, they don't discover new paradigms, and
they aren't receptive to new paradigms discovered by others.

Who, then, discovers new paradigms? Outsiders, people who
aren't firmly attached to the existing paradigm. "Almost
always", says Kuhn, "the men who achieve these fundamental
inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or
very new to the field whose paradigm they change."[4] As an
example, Kuhn mentions Dalton, who wasn't a chemist, yet
discovered a new paradigm in chemistry. Wegener wasn't a
geology specialist, yet discovered a new paradigm in geology.
Schliemann wasn't an archaeology specialist, yet discovered a
new paradigm in archaeology. The Oxford paradigm was
discovered not by a specialist, not by an English professor,
but by a non-specialist, an outsider, J. T. Looney. The
leading champion of the Oxford paradigm in our time, Charlton
Ogburn, is also a non-specialist, an outsider.

According to Kuhn, a period of normal science is usually
followed by a period of crisis. During a period of crisis,
the existing paradigm appears incapable of solving the
puzzles that confront it. As an example of a scientific
crisis, Kuhn points to astronomy in the early sixteenth
century. The paradigm that governed astronomy at this time
was Ptolemy's geocentric paradigm. But Ptolemy's paradigm
couldn't answer the questions that astronomers were asking.
The failure of Ptolemy's paradigm prompted Copernicus to
search for a new paradigm.

Kuhn argues that new scientific theories don't gain acceptance
through logic and evidence. Paradigms prevail by persuasion,
not proof. Kuhn describes the history of science with terms
like "conversion" and "faith", terms which, before Kuhn's work
appeared, had been considered more appropriate to the history
of religion than the history of science. Kuhn says that a new
scientific theory is a whole new way of looking at a
particular field. He compares a new theory to "a switch in
visual gestalt....What were ducks in the scientist's world
before the revolution are rabbits afterwards. The man who
first saw the exterior of the box from above later sees its
interior from below."[7]

In a debate over paradigms, each side is so involved with its
own paradigm that it scarcely hears the arguments of the other
side. Each side is sure that it can prove its case, and each
side accuses the other side of not answering its arguments,
its "proofs". In a debate over paradigms, argument and
evidence is often of no avail. As Kuhn says, the argument for
a paradigm "cannot be made logically or even probabilistically
compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle."[10]
Transition to a new paradigm usually comes not through a chain
of reasoning, not through an accumulation of evidence, but
through a flash of intuition.

Our perceptions aren't passive and neutral, but rather are
shaped by our preconceptions; we simply don't perceive that
which conflicts with our preconceptions. Kuhn describes a
psychological experiment in which people were shown cards
(playing cards). Most of the cards were normal, some were
anomalous (for example, a black four of hearts). At first
people didn't perceive the anomaly, and said, for example,
that the black four of hearts was a black four of spades or a
red four of hearts. As they were shown more anomalous cards,
they began to hesitate and to perceive the anomaly. Most
people eventually "saw the light" and began identifying the
cards correctly. Some people, however, never managed to
identify the cards correctly; their preconceptions overpowered
their perceptions.[11]

No one would deny the importance of research and evidence.
It's important, however, to understand the limits of evidence.
It's important to understand that people who subscribe to
different paradigms live in different worlds; what one side
calls "evidence" and "facts" and "proof" is meaningless to the
other side. Kuhn's work shows that even in the world of
science, where facts are supposed to reign supreme, facts
alone can't convert people to new theories. A new theory means
a revolutionary change, an entirely different viewpoint, a
brand new world.

. Quoted in Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (second edition, 1970, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press), ch. 12, p.
151.
152. Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy, II, 19. The James
quotation is from Kuhn, ch. 10, p. 113.
153. Kuhn, ch. 1, p. 5
154. Kuhn, ch. 8, p. 90
155. Kuhn, ch. 7, pp. 70, 71
156. Kuhn, ch. 8, p. 79
157. Kuhn, ch. 10, p. 111
158. Kuhn, ch. 10, p. 112
159. Kuhn, ch. 9, p. 94
160. Kuhn, ch. 9, p. 94
161. Kuhn, ch. 6, p. 63.
162. "The Shakespeare Mystery", Frontline, PBS, WGBH,
Boston, 1989.
163. Kuhn, ch. 12, p. 153

[Philip Dei]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:24:49 -0400, "firstjois"
<firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
>
>Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
>evasive with you, think there is a reason for this? I'm
>concerned.

So soon? Does having someonce in your killfile count one as
being evasive. Ah yes, but there was that McGinnian Death
Spiral thing. Messy business and all for Jimbo.

[Res6l2wx]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GvudnWDjF7v7dtqiU-KYgg@comcast.com...
>
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
>
> Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
> evasive with you, think there is a reason for this? I'm
> concerned.
>
You bet, everyone who cares a rat's ass about what McGinn
says is concerned. Cheers John GW

[Jim McGinn]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<muhgkvom5tn4a87nqjc7d3edn1r3vibkop@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:24:49 -0400, "firstjois"
> <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
> >
> >Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
> >evasive with you, think there is a reason for this? I'm
> >concerned.
>
> So soon? Does having someonce in your killfile count one as
> being evasive. Ah yes, but there was that McGinnian Death
> Spiral thing. Messy business and all for Jimbo.

Phil (Colonel McBrag), why don't you, again, tell us about how
you invented the peer review process.

Jim

[Jim McGinn]

"res6l2wx" <res6l2wx@verizon.net> wrote

> You bet, everyone who cares a rat's ass about what
> McGinn says is concerned.

If you are not going to take part in the content oriented
aspects of these discussions I suggest you don't take part at
all, asshole.

Jim

[Michael Cl]

"res6l2wx" <res6l2wx@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ZB62b.7460$081.3870@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GvudnWDjF7v7dtqiU-KYgg@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
> > evasive with you, think there is a reason for this? I'm
> > concerned.
> >
> You bet, everyone who cares a rat's ass about what
> McGinn says is concerned. Cheers John GW

Jim McGinn? Who's that? I don't see anyone by that name in
this list. Oh, there he is --swimming around in the bottom of
my bit bucket. How's the weather down there, Jimbo?

[Jim McGinn]

"Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:<vkid3de9p0g43c@corp.supernews.com>...
> "res6l2wx" <res6l2wx@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ZB62b.7460$081.3870@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > "firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:GvudnWDjF7v7dtqiU-KYgg@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people
> > > are evasive with you, think there is a reason for this?
> > > I'm concerned.
> > >
> > You bet, everyone who cares a rat's ass about what
> > McGinn says is concerned. Cheers John GW
>
> Jim McGinn? Who's that? I don't see anyone by that name in
> this list. Oh, there he is --swimming around in the bottom
> of my bit bucket. How's the weather down there, Jimbo?

It seems like your killfile only works in threads where
somebody asks you to substantiate your dimwitted claims.

Jim

[Firstjois]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0308231830.486eab6b@posting.google.com...
: "firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<GvudnWDjF7v7dtqiU-KYgg@comcast.com>...
: > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:ac6a5059.0308202030.670e6c66@posting.google.com...
: >
: > Jim, this could be serious. Looks like a lot of people are
: > evasive
with
: > you, think there is a reason for this?
:
:
:
: www.everreader.com/shak2.htm
:

Thank you, Jim, this was a good read and I'll try to find
Kuhn's primary book for winter reading.

Someone tossed Planck's comment into this group a few days ago
(you?) and I probably will try to find the context for that
eventually, too. Interesting.

Just the same, I think section 2. "The Power of
Preconceptions" is true of every field on human endeavor and
essential to keep us from jumping off every rock, tripping
over every stone. We would live in madness if we couldn't
define a paradigm for practically everything or everything we
do, say, and believe. And I do not see where L. James Hammond
or Kuhn offer much in the way of suggestions to getting around
this problem, though the conclusion mentions exposure to broad
outline, familiarize others with the new (what?) light? If
that is what you are doing then you are going at the problem
with too fine a brush, going into details has to make others
dig deeper into their own paradigm. Seems defeatist. Well, in
part 5 another approach is suggested, you might chose to
become a flasher: "Transition to a new paradigm usually comes
not through a chain of reasoning, not through an accumulation
of evidence, but through a flash of intuition." That part.

Elting E. Morison in "Men, Machines, and Modern Times" by
Elting E. Morison (MIT Press 1966) examined this same kind of
problem and mechanical innovation. He starts with a lovely
tale (that he admits is probably apocryphal) about early days
in W.W.II when the British were making do with older artillery
field pieces and finding the firing too slow got a time-motion
specialist to observe the firing process and suggest ways to
simplify the process. The guy watched the 5 man gun crew and
in slow-motion pictures saw two members of the crew come to
attention for a 3 second interval during the firing of the
gun. When he asked what they were doing an old timer was able
to supply that they were holding the horses. (Now 1. I did
tell you his opinion of the story and 2. all the guys on the
crew were men.)

Morison suggests some of the steps that might be taken to ease
mechanical innovations into society (interesting) but suggests
that change and intellectual advance (and I'd say we were
calling new theories advances, right?) are the products of
well-trained and well-stored inquisitive minds. Take Crick and
Waston as an example. They weren't football players who
noticed that a spin on the ball seemed to neaten up the toss
but both well trained in their own fields, very knowledgeable,
and inquisitive. Dear old Dalton, Wegener, Schliemann (Bet
Kuhn wasn't an archaeologist to include Schliemann.) had to
have some background, training, and be nosing around outside
their own fields, right?

So, to me, These "outsiders" Kuhn mentions already had
their feet wet. And I think it is the responsibility of the
"outside" not to pound his ideas into the heads of the
"experts" but to examine how to do so and/or why he isn't
getting his point across. Poor presentation? Logic is off?
Spreading the theory over too much ground? Just not a good
idea? What do you think when you read the AAT/AAR guys?
What do you think of their approach (es) to getting their
gig across? And Tom Testosterone? Just thinking about him
makes me tired.

Jois

[Jim McGinn]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote

"The Power of Preconceptions" is true of
> every field on human endeavor and essential to keep us from
> jumping off every rock, tripping over every stone. We would
> live in madness if we couldn't define a paradigm for
> practically everything or everything we do, say, and
> believe.

I agree. (But it's really not the issue.)

<snip>

I cut and pasted the following from this webpage. I think it's
relevance to the questions at hand is obvious.

http://webpages.shepherd.edu/ehoski01/paper.htm

************ Begin Cut and Paste *****************

<snip>

The Ptolemaic system was full of questions that could not be
answered and answers that were extremely complicated. Many of
the Arabian astronomers began adding more and more eccentrics
to make the system work. As these were added, the system
became more confusing and difficult. There were also many
inconsistencies that the Ptolemaic system could not explain.
For example, to explain the issue of retrograde motion, the
Ptolemaic system added the epicycle. Epicycles helped to show
the apparent reversal of the path of planets, now known as
retrograde. This is a moving diagram of the system. These
epicycles caused the planets to stop, reverse their course and
move forward again. Even then, the results were not very close
to the actual planetary motions. To attempt to fix this, the
equant was added. It complicates his diagram more. The
proposed diagram, with the eccentric, epicycle and the equant
would look something like this:

<snip>

The reason for the delayed acceptance of the heliocentric
model was that it was considered absurd from a common-sense
point of view. Astronomers had grown up thinking that there
was a definite division between the heavens and earth,
perfection and corruption. The thought that the earth was
spinning rapidly under our feet was a theory that they could
not comprehend. If this was true, how could birds find their
nests or stones fall straight down?

<snip>

************* End Cut and Paste ******************

Also, check out this link:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3E7224B5

Jim

[Firstjois]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0308252029.3d6da7cf@posting.google.com...
: "firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote
:
: "The Power of Preconceptions" is true of
: > every field on human endeavor and essential to keep us
: > from jumping off every rock, tripping over every stone. We
: > would live in madness if we couldn't define a paradigm for
: > practically everything or everything we
do,
: > say, and believe.
:
: I agree. (But it's really not the issue.)
:
: <snip>
:
To me it is the same issue. Here's another slant:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/brooks.htm

Jois

[Firstjois]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0308252029.3d6da7cf@posting.google.com...
: "firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote
:
: "The Power of Preconceptions" is true of
: > every field on human endeavor and essential to keep us
: > from jumping off every rock, tripping over every stone. We
: > would live in madness if we couldn't define a paradigm for
: > practically everything or everything we
do,
: > say, and believe.
:
: I agree. (But it's really not the issue.)
:
: <snip>
:

And

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/sep03/e-
ureka.html

click at the bottom for the full pdf article.

Jois

[Jim McGinn]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote

> : "The Power of Preconceptions" is true of
> : > every field on human endeavor and essential to keep us
> : > from jumping off every rock, tripping over every stone.
> : > We would live in madness if we couldn't define a
> : > paradigm for practically everything or everything we
> do,
> : > say, and believe.
> :
> : I agree. (But it's really not the issue.)
> :
> : <snip>
> :
> To me it is the same issue. Here's another slant:

I wasn't discussing whether paradigms are necessary or
not. I agree they are necessary. I'm discussing the
intellectual stasis associated with paradigms. These are
two different subjects.

Jim