Actually, it truly is random...


Wally wrote:
How can we tell if that's the case?


First of all, because somebody on the internet said so

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to explain
it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in random
vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of the human
mind seeking to find patterns where none exist, but it fits nicely in
with a number of other such explanations... none of these explanations
can be proven false and together they seem to explain & predict (to a
large extent) behavior... does that make it true?

What would Aristotle say?

DSK

DSK wrote:

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,

It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.


... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?

Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


What would Aristotle say?

No idea.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,




Wally wrote:
It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.



Except that this is not the way the human mind seems to work. Other
mammals share the characteristic, too... as far as psych researchers can
determine... we all are struggling to bring order out of chaos!




... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?


Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


Sure. As you said earlier, it is only "true" to the extent that it has
been observed consistently for about 400 years. After all, just because
the sun rose in the east every morning for the last gazillion years,
does not prove that it will rise in the east tomorrow morning.



What would Aristotle say?


No idea.


Aristotlean physics was based on the very intuitive notion that heavy
things fall faster. Of course I'm not sure, but I suspect he would
consider it silly to propose that water might flow up hill and the sun
might rise in the west.

DSK

All this crap is off-topic. You guys are as bad as the meow catbox litter crowd.
It's bad enough we've got to put up with them but now you're doing the same thing
trying to ruin the group.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.cum



"DSK" wrote in message . ..
Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,




Wally wrote:
It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.



Except that this is not the way the human mind seems to work. Other
mammals share the characteristic, too... as far as psych researchers can
determine... we all are struggling to bring order out of chaos!




... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?


Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


Sure. As you said earlier, it is only "true" to the extent that it has
been observed consistently for about 400 years. After all, just because
the sun rose in the east every morning for the last gazillion years,
does not prove that it will rise in the east tomorrow morning.



What would Aristotle say?


No idea.


Aristotlean physics was based on the very intuitive notion that heavy
things fall faster. Of course I'm not sure, but I suspect he would
consider it silly to propose that water might flow up hill and the sun
might rise in the west.

DSK

What would Aristotle say?

He'd say the various humours are phlogistinated.

William Dampier, famous Navigator