|
|
Posted by dorayme on 02/02/05 11:49
In article <dr71rhegeyr3$.dlg@markparnell.com.au>,
Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> declared in alt.html:
>
> > Whether things conform or not is a totally different question to
> > whether the standard is a good one.
>
> But something that conforms perfectly to an imperfect standard must
> logically also be imperfect.
This is either a confusion or a non sequitur. You need to look
hard at what you mean by an "imperfect standard". This can mean a
variety of different things.
I think it is clear now that you don't understand the
significance and simple power of your first intuition. Being
perfect is a bit (I did not say exactly) like "going very fast"
or "being very big", one needs to know what the standard is. The
idea of being big absolutely is a nonsense.
>
> So to determine whether it is perfect, we must compare it to a perfect
> standard,
No.
> This doesn't mean that the perfect is impossible of course, just that we
> can't prove it scientifically.
It is no use at all saying whether something can be proven or not
proven (nothing is ever reall proven scientifically btw) until
you establish what it is you are trying to prove.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|