Hillwilliam
Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You are correct that Sherlock holmes didnt exist in reality, Maybe I should have put a disclaimer to restate the painfully obvious. Are you one of those people that gets pissed off if a new iron doesnt have a "Do not use in the shower" sticker on it?
You are incorrect in saying that his world is not based on the laws of reality. (unless you are talking about the movie). The books were fiction, not fantasy.
I said that you disprove all alternatives and must accept the thing that is left. You denied that saying you have to show evidence that the last is correct. I submit that the impossibility of all alternatives IS evidence that the last possibilty is correct. (Google "Occam's Razor some time). If the last alternative isnt correct, it only means that ALL others weren't considered which eliminates the first premise and sends you back to the old drawing board.
As for the subject changing to creationism....where did that come from. That belongs on another topic.
You would make a very poor minded scientist.
Sherlock Holmes's reality is based on fiction. What does the word 'fiction' mean? "A work of fantasy". The Dictionary So, anything in Sherlock's stories should not be taken as scientific fact; otherwise, I would have to believe there is a Stargate in operation in the United States of America. Not only that, but humans have been to hundreds of worlds, battle alien monsters, and formed allianced with many other aliens. Stargate SG1 is a work of fiction, and hence, a fantasy. They use H&K MP5's for the 1st season, and FN P90's after that (those are real world weapons). However, its fiction, and a fantasy.
You were the one making some arguement that, Mr. Holme's reality some how is the exact same as ours. Kind of like Intelligent Design 'scientists' trying to pass their theories and ideas off, as legitimate evidence to the scientific community.
(Hence, the acknowledgement of Creationism)
While electricity does conduct well through metal, one inventor of US history, also tried many other substances, in an effort to see if anything else was conductive of electricity. Wood, cotton, pig flesh, even water, servered as testing materials. But the passing or elimination of those things, did not thereroe mean, metals had to be the correct answer. The metals themselves, still had to be tested. Some were better then others.
quote:
I submit that the impossibility of all alternatives IS evidence that the last possibilty is correct.
Let me explain why this does not work: Criminal Justice style. If I say to the court that the other 431 people on a train did not kill someone, because only you and he, was found in the mail car, you, must therefore be guilty of murder. The guy was killed by a gunshot to the head. The court immediately finds you are guilty and sends you off to chair...
That's your arguement.
In criminal forcenics, someone would study the theory that the guy himself, committed suicide (as you claim in the court case), rather then you holding the gun, shooting the guy, then placing it in his hand. They would look at things, including a 3-D perspective, to see if it would even be possible, for someone's hand fire a gun at the same angle, you would have fired at him. Go ask a forcenics scientist some time on tough cases that were solved; facinating stuff.
What is the difference between the two? In the first example, is Occam's Razor in effect. The second, takes in the idea, that no one has actually proved, that you killed the guy; but instead, he took his own life.
Occam's Razor, is one tool, to explain a concept, but its certainly not a trump card. In some cases, it works, and most others, it doesnt. Often, its used with scientific theories being explained to the general public, who dont hold Ph.D's and 30 years of knowledge on the subject. A scientific theory is a important concept in science. It is not 'a guess or someone's opinion'.
I'm sure there are a few scientists on here that can explain this better then myself.
You say Id make a poor scientist. that's interesting since Ive got stuff published when I was in grad school and it isnt political at all..
I'll GUARANTEE that there are some that could explain it better than you as you dont really have a grasp. You watch too much CSI and have not near enough practical experience.
By the way, it's forensics. I will give ya credit for a typo, though, as I'm king of typos.
As far as Doyle's reality, show me where Doyle violates any natural law especially as it was known at the end of the 19th century. Your "Stargate crap is just that, CRAP" it's called fantasy. If you dont know the difference between fantasy and fiction, you need to get a job in political radio.
As I said earlier, if you could THINK, elimination of EVERY possible alternative means that you have to accept the last . EVERY alternative doesnt mean just the ones you can think of. It means EVERY alternative. In your simple "murder on a train" scenario earlier, you totally forgot one that hit me in the first 5 seconds. Who says a shot that kills a person had to come from the train?
You think too simply
|
RE: Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread