Text 846, 190 rader
Skriven 2006-05-27 11:58:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1292.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Do we need artificial
=================================
* * * This message was from Arlen Roy Kundert to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <1148729164.463287.93970@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
@REPLY: <NeCdnVYxKP-1zu3ZRVnyvw@bt.com>
Duggy wrote:
> Arlen Roy Kundert wrote:
> > Duggy wrote:
> > > You don't learn without doing.
> > *Claps* *Claps* *Claps*
>
> > Beautiful job of ignoring context.
>
> Ditto.

I did not miss the what the context of your argument was pointing to.
You where advocating that we don't learn without doing, it part of the
process. In other words, the last step in the scientific method.

How does this argument address the main point I was advocating, that we
need to gain moral accountability to where we are technology? And if it
was not meant to, why did you bother to quote me, giving me reason to
believe that you are addressing my argument?

>
> > If you read my reply you would have seen I offered further context to
> > my argument.
>
> Irrelevant to my point.

Again, if the point of your argument is irrelevant to the context of my
argument why then did you in fact quote me giving every reason to
believe that that you are addressing my argument with your argument of
we don't learn without doing, it part of the process.

>
> > I would hate to have a professor that graded my research projects this
> > way.
>
> I'm not grading a paper I'm addressing a point.

You did more then try to address a point. You *in fact* put words in my
mouth. And this is where I got really upset.

>>There was no *real* point in going to the moon.  Shouldn't NASA have
waited until they good get to Mars... no wait, you think that's
pointless too... In the 60s NASA should have just sat there doing
nothing and waited for the ability to travel to other stars.<<

You don't in anyway think this qualifies itself as a "straw man"
argument and a personal attack?

The use the word *you* in this context address me NOT my argument. So
I, Arlen Roy Kundert think that going to Mars is pointless? So *you*
know *me* well enough to make a personalized statement like this? Now I
will give you that this may have been a typo and it wasn't meant as a
personal attack. What was meant by this?

I *never* stated that going to Mars was "pointless" I stated that I
don't see what is "practical" about having a manned mission to Mars
right now. Now admittedly the word "pointless" can be a synonym of the
word "impractical" depending on the context. But if I meant going to
Mars is "pointless" why then why did I say "sending people to Mars
before we have much faster, safer, and cost effective means of
transportation leaves me content to use unmanned probes for the time
being."

Here is the statement in context.

>>I know I may get a little flack for this, but for the life of me I
can't figure out what is practical about having a maned mission to
Mars. There is the argument that it's scientific curiosity, but sending
people to Mars before we have much faster, safer, and cost effective
means of transportation leaves me content to use unmanned probes for
the time being.  <<

How in context does this warrant charge that *I* said going to Mars is
"pointless"? How did you show respect to context? I see a "straw man"
argument at best,  with a personal attack at worst.

>
> Although you may like to pretend, my reply was not addressed by the
> rest of your post.

Really? So what does this say to you in addressing the main point of
your argument about "doing" being part of the learning process and the
need for manned space flight now to effect the advancement of space
travel?

>>But yes, we need manned exploration of space NOW in order to make
breakthroughs in space travel. Because we all know that the
breakthrough of Ion propulsion came from the manned exploration of
space. Oh wait, no it didn't.<<

And you will note this point does not contradict the principle of your
argument "doing being part of the learning process" only the the add on
of test pilots does it challenge.

Seeing how "doing" is the last step in the scientific method, it's I
will happily address, but it's not something I'm about to challenge
anytime soon.

> > > > But that's just what I want for my time and money, yours may vary.
> > > Ah, yes, money.
> > > There's no money in "faster ships we may one day use to go to a dead
> > > planet."
> > > There's a little money in "we have a plan to go to Mars."
> > > There's a lot of money in "We made it to Mars, let's build faster ships
> > > to make it easier!"
> > Great job of taking what I myself have said (and you even quoted it)
> > and using it in a very bastardized context against something I wasn't
> > even talking about. And using it like you just thought of it and I'm
> > somehow disagreeing with you.
>
> > I stated that >>There is the argument that it's scientific curiosity,
> > but sending people to Mars *BEFORE* we have much *FASTER*, *SAFER*, and
> > cost effective means of transportation leaves me content to use
> > unmanned probes for *THE TIME BEING*.<< (not forever)
>
> And I said, that making it to Mars now will create interest in building
> faster ships.
>
> We have the technology to do this without our grasp, we know the
> timetable, we can estimate the cost.  Therefore, we can assign the
> money to the project.
>
> Completing the project will bring more interest & more money for fast
> travel.
>
> Creating the technology for the doable trip will make faster technology
> easier to get.
>
> Money for a project beyond our current ability to be completed at some
> far off point is nice, but it ain't going to happen.

If this....
>
> > But as far as "money" goes, you will note I said TIME and MONEY. I
> > assumed (my mistake) that most people would understand that this
> > qualifies itself as talking about the amount of effort or blood and
> > sweat involved what a given project. Sorry, my bad.
>
> Most people understanf the politics involved.

...and this are the case. Why again did you quote me the way you did?
You quoted this:

<snip>
>> But that's just what I want for my time and money, yours may vary.<<

And then said this

<snip>
>>Ah, yes, money.

There's no money in "faster ships we may one day use to go to a dead
planet."

There's a little money in "we have a plan to go to Mars."

There's a lot of money in "We made it to Mars, let's build faster ships
to make it easier!"  <<

What else am I to think you doing when you 1) quote me, 2) then take
one word I used (money) out of the context it was used in and starting
a speech about, 3) building faster ships (something I talked about in
my first post) can make lots of money, then doing just what I said in
the first place.

>>Great job of taking what I myself have said (and you even quoted it)
and using it in a very bastardized context against something I wasn't
even talking about. And using it like you just thought of it and I'm
somehow disagreeing with you.<<


> > Normally I don't get upset if someone disagrees with me, but it really
> > ticks me off if someone attacks my opinions, feelings, or beliefs with
> > the straw man argument.
>
> Reading your reply, I know exactly what you mean.

Really? So at some point I disagreed with the principled argument that
"doing" is part of the learning process, the final step in the
scientific method I in someway challenged and to top it off with a
"straw man" argument. Really? Show me.
                           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)