Replies

That's all nonsense, so far they're just tentative ideas pending further research & analysis.

Please tell me I have NOT been wasting my time on someone so naive as to not understand the aphorism “a distinction without difference is NO difference!”

You like to read? Fine, I’ve got one for you. Try “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Khun. It has been THE standard for over fifty years dealing specifically with the history and progress of science.

As for your penchant to cavalierly shrug off VALID criticisms, and teenager-like surety of your own “knowing” ... I’m done with you.

papertyger: "Please tell me I have NOT been wasting my time on someone so naive as to not understand the aphorism 'a distinction without difference is NO difference!' "

So why not just make your case -- show me how there's really no difference -- instead of blasting away with stupid insults?
And of course I know the answer: because there is a real difference, but you can't accept it so substitute insults for honest responses.

papertyger: "As for your penchant to cavalierly shrug off VALID criticisms, and teenager-like surety of your own 'knowing' ... I’m done with you."

But you've made no VALID criticisms, just teenager-like angry insults, as if you knew the whole truth but couldn't lower yourself to say it nicely.
But in fact you don't know the truth, even a small part of it, and that's WHY you blast away with such ridiculous insults.

Anyway, have a blessed day.

papertyger: "You like to read?
Fine, I’ve got one for you.
Try “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Khun.
It has been THE standard for over fifty years dealing specifically with the history and progress of science. "

Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
$10.22 for Kindle edition...

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962; second edition 1970; third edition 1996; fourth edition 2012) is a book about the history of science by the philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn.
Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge.
Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in 'normal science'.
Normal scientific progress was viewed as 'development-by-accumulation' of accepted facts and theories.
Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.
The discovery of 'anomalies' during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms.
New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere 'puzzle-solving' of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the 'map' directing new research"

I am familiar with Kuhn's ideas to the point of taking them for granted, without thinking deeply of their origins.
Indeed, what Kuhn is talking about in 1962 regarding science might well be said of Stephen J. Gould's 1972 ideas on evolution's punctuated equilibrium.
And I'd note criticisms of both ideas include that the "equilibrium" phase is often more dynamic than usually supposed.

And you think Kuhn is important here for what reason?