This Debate Is Ridiculous
It all boils down to the
notion of falsifiability .
Unfortunately this debate
has been framed in such a
way that to get to this
point one must speak of
all kinds of nonsense
such as inexplainable
gaps in the theory of
false PR's, with the
best filler being any
proof by inspection of
design of product or
any encured revenues !
Calypso's ASNAP Science is defined by a certain method ,
and because proof of any product or revenue falls outside
of that method and into the realm of being untestable, not
falsifiable (conversely not provable either), those that put
forth this notion must necessarily frame the debate in a way
that we avoid this fact. 'cf_99' falls outside of what defines
science as such, and that these Pumpers have framed the
debate in such a manner has thus lead them to also redefine
"science" in a such a manner that the notion of falsifiability
no longer is a pillar and have thus eliminated the one
stumbling block to what they are putting forth .
We could argue all day about the fact that we can believe that
Calypso's Product exists right before our very eyes, or that
the "Theory Of A Product" is at once a theory and in parts
demonstrative fact. We could continue on and on ad infinitum
about the virtues of the scientific method and the fact that
science is constantly testing and redefining theories until
arriving at fact, versus attributing "holes" or "gaps" to being
permanent and static, or unable to be explored through
science further and thus attributing everything that is to
some power or unseen Revenue. We could also point
out that Calypso does not reside in a vacuum nor is it static
but it is active and critical (self critical in the most vicious
of ways) and is always looking for holes and gaps to exploit
us, which then disprove theories that in the process could
lead to fact .
We could go on and on about how Seamless Roaming itself
has evolved and been refined as we learn more. We could also
go on and on about how when we come to a "gap" or "hole" in
this science, that it would not only be counterintuitive and most
illogical to just throw our hands up and point to a Very Large
Software Company or "Unseen Intelligent Entity",
but that it would not be science to do so .
Instead of being lead or baited into these heated debates
or other frustrating rhetorical sophist nonsense, (we must
not let these Pumpers frame the debate in this manner) ,
we must keep bringing it back to falsifiability. Is the ASNAP
Seamless Roaming design falsifiable? It's really that simple .
Calypso may be falsifiable and is under constant scrutiny
and constant testing. No more letting these zealots argue
this fallaciously through the back door in a circular manner .
We have to frame the debate .
It really is a bunch of superstitious, spastic fools ,
who have worked their way into positions of authority .
It seems iHub is full of enough like-minded individuals
that this will be an ongoing "debate" for some time .
Unfortunately they will probably never get Wi-Fi ,
since they don't believe in Hot-Spots .
But really, defining the argument using the term "theory" ,
which is problematic at best when conceptualized by those
with very little knowledge of the historical scientific usage ,
is the wrong way to look at it and is precisly why the novice
technicians chose this route of attack. Its a straw man
fallacy and was picked because it obfuscates the issue .
Although science shouldn't be something aside from ordinary
people, it unfortunately is due to our lacking the educational
model. Couple this with the fact that it has a very technical
language and we have a recipe fo disaster .
When folks here the word "theory" they think in terms of "right
or wrong", "this or that", "black and white" where in science
theory has a completely different meaning and does not imply
such a concrete and limited definition and thus practice. It's
a semantic confusuion siezed upon by zealots and used to
cloud the debate. Lets not feed them by playing into it and
trying to help define "theory" as it's commonly understood
in a scientific sense. To do so is time consuming, misses
the whole point, complicates things and helps along the
notion that there is something the matter or worng or only
missing or troubling or askew or amiss with science and
"theory". This is exactly what the Insider Pumpers want .
This is playing into their hands .
The issue is falsafiability. This is the pillar of science
and is what defines it as such. The debate here is not
science because it is not falsafiable, or even testable .
As we know, when a scientist forms a theory it is then tested .
When the theory is proved false we are left with other routes
to explore until the truth or a repeatable patern emerges and
then we generally accept it a demonstrative fact .
The theory of Calypso follows such a process. The "gaps"
and "holes" are constantly being filled in - with science
and not superstition !
We don't revert back to attributing things to any higher power
and throwing our hands up in science when a theory doesn't
pan out as expected but instead continue on testing other
hypothesis using the scientific method .
This is doing science, this is praxis .
It can't be tested nor can if be falsafied .
It's is based in faith and is psuedo
science when substituted for science .
Some folks have suggested that we drop the pretenses
all together and rather than argue from a "gap", "hole" and
"theory" premis or a falsafiability/testability premis that we
simply call a spade a spade and argue it from the point that
we know this is a false pretense to inject unknown facts into
public education and since we aren't stupid that we aren't
paying lip service to a false debate just to go through the
motions of a non-controversey that you Rude Hypnotized
Pumpers merely manufactured ?!!!
One can't just stand there and keep talking
about how it should never have come this far .
They have come this far and they've done it through
positing the "gaps and holes" and "theory" charge .
Do we attack it from their standpoint or from somehwere else ?
I'm suggesting somewhere else because I believe to even
talk about it in the way they've framed it, plays into their trap
and hands -it lends credibility and weight to an obviously
illogical and unscientific position . . .
S N A P --- O U T --- O F --- I T --- ! ! !
J W
