RexT

No, I'm not making an argument from authority. I simply meant that Amedeo might have something in mind besides the obvious. Why assume he needs philosophy 101?

Better to ask Amedeo where he's going with this than to make derogatory assumptions.

Rex

Theophage

Hey Amedeo, where are you going with this?

(Personally, I think that Loren's post was spot on.)

MeinGeist

I notice that Smullyan-esque has contributed to the 0.999...=1 and other threads that Amadeo started. I think your assumption that S is making assumptions about A is unwarranted. I'd say he has an informed opinion of A's mental capabilities that is way more favorable than mine.

MeinGeist

And what kind of an occupation is 'Exposer of Exilic Jewish Censors Defamers and Domineers in their hosting Gentile Countries'?
Anti-semitic activism?

skepticalbip

That's one hell of a big if. Do you have any evidence (any evidence at all) to support it? If not then the whole post seems to be nothing more than mental masturbation.

RexT

I too have participated in a limited amount of discussion with Amedeo, and it is clear that he is an educated person. Whether his credentials are what he says they are is not something I would question without something more substantial than participation in a few threads with him. If his Ph.D. is philosophy, he might not be too much of a mathematician, or he might be trying to apply some philosophical approach to math. I don't know, for I am certainly not much knowledgeable about math either. I know math is a language, and like any other language it would be subject to some amount of ambiguity on account of different interpretations.

Anyway, if this is supposed to be some kind of attack on Amedeo's credentials, then it amounts to calling him a liar. I believe that is against the rules. I believe you can attack his arguments of lack thereof, but unless you have some kind of proof, I'd avoid calling him a liar.

Rex

TNorthover

You brought up his credentials. Doing that and then forbidding questioning them based on the rules is extremely bad form so far as I'm concerned, regardless of truth.

RexT

I suppose I did bring up his credentials, but they are there on his public profile. I did it in responce to Smully's suggestion that Amedeo needed philosophy 101. I have no idea if A's credentials are what he says, but I sure as hell can tell he is far beyond 101.

I'm not forbidding anyone from questioning his credentials based on the rules.

I saying that a post or two from a person is hardly reason to question his or her credentials. To assume a poster is ignorant without ever bothering to learn something about them except what they see in a few posts is bad form, indeed! But now that it has been brought to your attention that Amedeo claims a Ph.D. in philosophy, any further questions of his intelligence and credentials should be avoided without reasonable grounds.

Anyway, this is all derail and I'll let Amedeo defend his credentials, provided he feels a need to do that.

Rex

perfessor

What many of us have seen, in the "0.9999...." thread, and the "straight line" thread, is that Amedeo seems to want to reinvent the wheel to his own understandings, without being bothered to research the topic.

So for the moment, I'll assume that his question in the OP is astronomical in nature, and not philosophical:

Amedeo, take Astronomy 101. You will learn about parallax, stellar spectra and cycles, intrinsic brightness, red shift, etc. Once you begin to understand these topics, you will understand how it is that astronomers can tell us true facts about stars.

Amedeo

The following is a test question for those who believe in what the atronomers say, as when they state the distance between the real earth on which we stand [or some of us do] and the real moon at a particular time of the year [for people who are not lunatics].

Once again, people who are not lunatics and have their feet on the ground know that the measurement is not done with a yardstick, the moon is sighted, but the moon or any planet or any star THAT WE SEE is not a physical thing -- which is rather clear when you say that you are looking at a star whose light is reaching your eyes now, a light which the star was emitting one million years ago.
Do you get get? If light travels, there cannot be simultaneity between the light you are receiving and the light which was emitted. You are not seeing a star back one million years ago. The star you see is not the light-emitter of either a million years ago or of today. (The light which the star would be emitting today would not be received for a million years.)

How on earth or in hell CAN an astronomer find the real distance between the earth and the moon on which a rocket can land, when the moon he sees NOW (or at any particular time) is not the physical thing on which one can land?

I am not interested in the academic credentials anyone may have or not to have; I am interested in finding out anybody's ABILITY to ANSWER a question, if he believes that the astronomers have true knowledge of the distances in question. The ability to answer the question shows the mental credentials of the present readers.
-----
Should anyone get the feeling that the astronomers are not speaking the truth, I bet they are going to be told that they are anti-semites, obtuse people who do not know that p implies p, that 0.999... = 1, that a straight line is the distance between two points, and that they cannot tell the difference between a real body and a visual body, that have has fake credentials, and non-god knows what else!*** Why, the ADL [Academic Defaming League] will come upon the astronomers with divine vengeance.
______________________
*** P.S. I had forgotten: plagiarist.