Recent content by dschouten

I was referring to the almost hilarious 'law of action and reaction for nail-guns'. I realize fully how contrived this example is, but I think it is a valid counterexample to the reasoning you have put forth so far in this forum. I shall show this to you next week sometime. Stay tuned (you can...

You've only replied to half of my last post. Refer back to it for a clear example of a ludicrous theory. Early QM theory predicted a massless neutrino. With the exception of actually testing the mass of the neutrino, this theory showed remarkable success in predicting outcomes of a multitude...

First off, the hammer analogy is a misleading one in the sense that, whatever it takes to get the nail in, so long as the nail goes in everything is fine. Not so with science: theories have the added requirement that they must be general and fundamental. For instance, there is no theory for...

This can't be the case, Locrian, because then anything with predictive power can be a valid scientific theory. However, the nature of a scientific theory should be to establish an understanding of the most fundamental interactions with which it is concerned. Thus, since relativity is a...

:rolleyes:

You're still avoiding the question...

Why can't a question also be a challenge? Example: do you think you're better than me? :smile: Whatever. I asked a question, and rather than answering it, 90% of the respondants decided to ignore it or deride it. Why not just answer the friggin' question? What part of normal communication...

This would've been my first response, but I don't think that what it implies is the truth. What it seems to imply is that the question "Why?" is asked merely by happenstance, to keep oneself busy, etc ... (fill in the blank with some other reason). But I don't think this is the case. Out of...

McCurly "Let's"? This implies some sort of collaboration. I asked the question. I'll determine the recursion thereof.

The fact that dying so obviously makes a difference to anyone's caring is the reason I chose not to respond to this question. I shouldn't have to validate every obvious assumption hidden in the nuances of my question. Consider: you are on your death bed, and have hours to live. Some guy from...

Good for your friend. Sounds like a fun game. You are correct, the question was rhetorical. It was a challenge to anyone who cares to justify this seemingly meaningless pursuit of understanding.

Yes. Teehehe. Snicker. Hmmph. Then I would probably die, you know, if I stopped drinking! Hahahaha. That is so funny! You are funny!

Like what for example? What, in the entire realm of philosophical debate is untouched by meaning? Okey-dokey. I have a sneaking suspicion about this and it has only been strengthened by the cute little quips I've received as replies so far: people like to avoid answering this question like...

Oh, that shouldn't matter. After all, these kind of inane discussions add meaning to our lives! Philosophy forums: where the wannabe's argue with the hasbeen's and the neverwas's (I fall into all of the above categories and argue with myself often). As a side note, I don't eat to have meaning...

So the question "Why?" is asked to gain satisfaction. Of course. You've simply restated the question.