Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1096713 Posts in 72539 Topics- by 19541 Members - Latest Member: Zorgnot
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumRecent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 08:11 AM 
Started by Greg Waits - Last post by robcat2075
Hillary wouldn't have been in position to get the Dem nom if she hadn't been a US Senator and she wouldn't have been in position for the NY Senate nom if she hadn't been highly visible during her husband's terms as President.

But... it was the sort of visibility that made her a serious consideration. She had shown herself to be an strong campaigner, able to think on her feet, answer any policy question (and dodge trap questions), RAISE MONEY, and establish an identity separate from Bill. It wasn't as if Harry Truman had put Bess up for a Senate seat.

Even in the health care flop of '94 she showed she was able to command the details of complex problems. That would be a qualifier for someone expected to write and vote on legislation in the Senate.






 2 
 on: Today at 08:05 AM 
Started by RedHotMama - Last post by BGuttman
My Physics courses ended quite a few years ago.  I'm trying to figure out how you measure the "properties" of Quarks.  What is "charmed" and "strange"?  Plus, there have to be hundreds of subatomic particles that I've never heard of.

As a Chemical Engineer my physics tended to be geared toward thermodynamics and toward mechanical issues.

Germane to our earlier discussion: as a trumpet player do you play  with 1st valve or with 1-3?  It's the same with our positions.  We can play  in 6th position, but it's generally used as a "gimmick" (like Arthur Pryor doing a full arpeggio from high C (an octave above that note) to F below the bass staff all in one position.

 3 
 on: Today at 08:04 AM 
Started by Baron von Bone - Last post by BillO
That said, a double negative does not equal a positive.
This is by no means a generally true statement.  The only time it is ever true is when we stop being anal about accuracy and accept statements like "I ain't never gonna do that agin,!" by forgiving the person for their poor language skills.


Quote
Maybe.
The best we can.
  Brilliant!

 4 
 on: Today at 07:57 AM 
Started by Baron von Bone - Last post by B0B
I believe BOB's point is that some of you are rather quickly jumping to the certainty of your assumptions-- a certainty that you deny to those of us who are theists.  I may be wrong, but I think this is what he's saying and he makes a valid point, I believe.
That would be one, yes. Bill has spent two pages looking for certainty through a process that does not offer it. They want to "prove" something, yet even the system they have to advance knowledge will never prove that. Meanwhile, he and the others attack religion for not being able to prove their side either.

It comes back to the limitations of that system. One, that it will never "prove" (addressed above). Two, that it can only address that which can be quantified. A great deal of life, and the most important aspects of life for us, is on a different level than what can be quantified and qualified as data.

Searching for love, meaning, joy, or self-fulfillment... are as equally invalid scientifically as searching for God.

 5 
 on: Today at 07:55 AM 
Started by mathétés - Last post by slideman.cruz
PM'd.

 6 
 on: Today at 07:52 AM 
Started by Baron von Bone - Last post by John the Theologian
ROTFLOL!!!
Oh, this gets even better.  Now there are no facts and nothing can be a larger truth.  Brilliant!

As I've said before "facts" only make sense in a context and the assumptions, hypotheses, etc. provide the context.  I think BOB's point is that sometimes it looks like some of you move to making assumptions into facts when really they are the context that pieces of data-- what you stared out calling facts-- are placed when they appear to solve a hypothesis.

At least that's what I think I'm understanding from this discussion.

I believe BOB's point is that some of you are rather quickly jumping to the certainty of your assumptions-- a certainty that you deny to those of us who are theists.  I may be wrong, but I think this is what he's saying and he makes a valid point, I believe.

 7 
 on: Today at 07:52 AM 
Started by Baron von Bone - Last post by BillO
You do like to fall back on elementary school tactics when you lose a point, don't you?

It's ok just say, "oops. I was wrong."
Heh..!

So Bob, how do we determine if there are facts or not?  Are there any?  How did they come to be?  Apparently we can't assume their existence and then show them to exist, not 100%, right?  No matter how much we observe a thing to be, according to you, we can never be 100% sure there is a thing.
 

 8 
 on: Today at 07:51 AM 
Started by Greg Waits - Last post by Ellrod
Generally, likability goes a long way in politics.

Hillary seemed to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Maybe it was the ambition.

 9 
 on: Today at 07:48 AM 
Started by Baron von Bone - Last post by B0B
ROTFLOL!!!
Oh, this gets even better.  Now there are no facts and nothing can be a larger truth.  Brilliant!
You do like to fall back on elementary school tactics when you lose a point, don't you?

It's ok just say, "oops. I was wrong."

 10 
 on: Today at 07:47 AM 
Started by Baron von Bone - Last post by B0B
You already implied that assumptions can be correct.  Remember when I asked "Are you saying assumptions can never be correct?" and you answered "Nope."  You should, it was only few posts ago.
I do remember, yes. That said, a double negative does not equal a positive.

Now, let me try again - a little more directly.

1) Can assumptions ever be correct?
Maybe.

2) If they can be correct, then how we are expected to determine that?
The best we can.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10