"Sarsi"

[From Bruce Abbott (980213.1315 EST)]

Bruce Gregory:

All I know about Sarsi is what the Britannica Online tells me:

About 20 languages of the Athabascan family are still spoken in four
different culture areas: . . .

This hardly seems to be what you had in mind!

Right on that score. Does "Lothario Sarsi," pseudonym of Father Horatio
Grassi, ring a bell?

Regards,

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (980213.1352)]

Bruce Abbott (980213.1315 EST)

Right on that score. Does "Lothario Sarsi," pseudonym of Father Horatio
Grassi, ring a bell?

I'm afraid not.

Bruce

[From Bruce Abbott (980213.1440 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (980213.1352) --

Bruce Abbott (980213.1315 EST)

Right on that score. Does "Lothario Sarsi," pseudonym of Father Horatio
Grassi, ring a bell?

I'm afraid not.

"Horatio" is the anglo version my source used; better: Orazio Grassi. See
the following Web site:

http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/a/esaggia.html

Regards,

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (980213.1454)]

Bruce Abbott (980213.1440 EST)

http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/a/esaggia.html

You don't have to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to
esoteric (and obscure) references! Wait. I take that back. You
still have to go a way to overtake James Joyce.

Bruce

[From Bruce Abbott (980213.1500 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (980213.1454)

You don't have to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to
esoteric (and obscure) references! Wait. I take that back. You
still have to go a way to overtake James Joyce.

Yeah, but I'm gaining on him!

Bruce

[From Bruce Abbott (980213.1630 EST)]

"Il Saggiatore," or "The Assayer," written by Galileo, is widely considered
to be the greatest polemic ever written in the physical sciences ( Drake,
1957). In it Galileo replys to the personal and vitriolic attack of the
Jesuit priest Orazio Grassi concerning Galileo's views on cometary
phenomena. Writing this attack under the pseudonym of "Lethario Sarsi,"
Grassi offers a number of alternative explanations for Galileo's
observations. In _The Assayer_, Galeleo takes these up one by one and
absolutely demolishes them. Grassi isn't just knocked down, he is drawn,
quarted, pulverized to dust, and then vaporized by Galeleo's scathing
attack. A mild example:

  In Sarsi I seem to discern the firm belief that in philosophy one must
  support oneself upon the opinion of some celebrated author, as if our
  minds ought to remain completely sterile and barren unless wedded to the
  reasoning of some other person. Possibly he thinks that philosophy is a
  book of fiction by some writer, like the _Illiad_ or _Orlando Furioso_,
  productions in which the least important thing is whether what is written
  is true. Well, Sarsi, that is not how matters stand. Philosophy is
  written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open
  to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns
  to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed.
  It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are
  triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is
  humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one
  wanders about in a dark labyrinth.
        (Drake, 1957, pp. 237-238)

When Rick Marken claimed Galileo as one of his heros (as do I), I thought it
would add a delicious irony to our debate if I cast him into the role of
Sarsi, whose debate tactics seem to my mind so similar to those of Marken.
I, however, do not claim to be a Galileo.

Regards,

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (980213.1711 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (980213.1630 EST)

"Il Saggiatore," or "The Assayer," written by Galileo, is widely considered
to be the greatest polemic ever written in the physical sciences ( Drake,
1957). In it Galileo replys to the personal and vitriolic attack of the
Jesuit priest Orazio Grassi concerning Galileo's views on cometary
phenomena. Writing this attack under the pseudonym of "Lethario Sarsi,"
Grassi offers a number of alternative explanations for Galileo's
observations. In _The Assayer_, Galeleo takes these up one by one and
absolutely demolishes them. Grassi isn't just knocked down, he is drawn,
quarted, pulverized to dust, and then vaporized by Galeleo's scathing
attack.

For added irony, as far as comets are concerned, Galileo was
dead wrong (he thought they were atmospheric phenomena), albeit
a great polemicist.

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (980213.1525)]

Bruce Abbott (980213.1630 EST) --

When Rick Marken claimed Galileo as one of his heros (as do I),
I thought it would add a delicious irony to our debate if I cast
him into the role of Sarsi, whose debate tactics seem to my mind
so similar to those of Marken.

It adds irony all right;-)

You might want to re-read some of "your own" words here, Galileo:

Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which
stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be
understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language
and read the letters in which it is composed.

My debates are spoken in the language of phenomena and written
in the letters of system equations. These debates are conducted
at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html. Your debates
seem to consist mainly of words supported by rumor and innuendo.
After 3+ years on this net you have contributed almost nothing
to the development of PCT science in terms of observation
and analysis. Instead, you have spent your time here claiming
to be a great supporter of PCT while ardently defending the
cause-effect model of organisms that PCT reveals to be based on
an unfortunate (if understandable) illusion. At least Sarsi
didn't claim to be an admirer of the non-Aristotilean astronomy
against which he railed.

I, however, do not claim to be a Galileo.

A wise decision, I think.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Abbott (970213.1840 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (980213.1711 EST) --

For added irony, as far as comets are concerned, Galileo was
dead wrong (he thought they were atmospheric phenomena), albeit
a great polemicist.

Yes, but he was wrong for the right reason: his analysis was both internally
consistent and consistent with the observations; he simply lacked
observations that would have pointed to another conclusion. Sarsi was wrong
for all the wrong reasons: his analysis was based on bad logic, ignorance of
or willful distortion of the observational facts, reliance on authority, and
so on.

Regards,

Bruce

[From Bruce Abbott (980213.2000 EST)]

Rick Marken (980213.1525) --

My debates are spoken in the language of phenomena and written
in the letters of system equations.

Oh really. Then why can't I get you to answer the simple question about
system equations which I posed for you?

These debates are conducted
at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html.

That explains why you won't engage in honest debate with me on CSGnet, I
guess. Here you only resort to polemical tricks: misdirection,
misrepresenation, ad hominum argumentation, character assination, outright
lying.

Your debates
seem to consist mainly of words supported by rumor and innuendo.

That's your style, not mine dear boy. You may not agree with my
conclusions, but I always provide arguments to support them, and empirical
evidence when I am aware of it. And of course, as you are fully aware, I
have sometimes supported my arguments with working computer simulations.
You want system equations? I got system equations! You don't even fully
understand the implications of the system equations from which emerges the
behavioral illusion. If you did, you wouldn't be asserting like a damned
ignorant fool that nothing about the organism can be learned from
psychophysical experiments. What a crock!

After 3+ years on this net you have contributed almost nothing
to the development of PCT science in terms of observation
and analysis.

Still beats your contribution over the past 3+ years, hands down.

Instead, you have spent your time here claiming
to be a great supporter of PCT while ardently defending the
cause-effect model of organisms that PCT reveals to be based on
an unfortunate (if understandable) illusion.

Not guilty. The behavioral illusion does not apply to the test conditions I
described, and you have not been able to argue otherwise. Instead, you have
been reduced to making absurd charges unsupported by either logic or evidence.

At least Sarsi
didn't claim to be an admirer of the non-Aristotilean astronomy
against which he railed.

At least I don't cloak unsupportable opinion as "implications" of PCT and
then claim that opposition to that opinion is opposition to PCT. That, dear
Sarsi, is your gig.

Cordially,

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (980213.2038)]

Bruce Abbott (970213.1840 EST)]

Yes, but he was wrong for the right reason.

I can see how some people might find that comforting.

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (980213.2030)]

Bruce Abbott (980213.2000 EST) --

Then why can't I get you to answer the simple question about
system equations which I posed for you?

Because you won't tell me what the question is. But whatever
it is, I'm sure Bill Powers (980213.1400 MST) has answered
it to your satisfaction.

Me:

These debates are conducted at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
demos.html.

Bruce:

Here you only resort to polemical tricks: misdirection,
misrepresenation, ad hominum argumentation, character assination,
outright lying.

I do all that in the demos? Maybe there is something to the Java
hype;-)

Anyway, I'm sorry if I have said anything that you consider a
personal attack. I do get frustrated but I hope I haven't
attacked your character. You may be useless to PCT but I'm
sure you're a terrific person otherwise.

Me:

Your debates seem to consist mainly of words supported by rumor
and innuendo.

Bruce:

You may not agree with my conclusions, but I always provide
arguments to support them, and empirical evidence when I
am aware of it.

You are correct. My "rumor and innuendo" comment was innappropriate.
I guess I was reacting to the fact that the empirical evidence you
provide is what I consider to be rumor since it is based on research
that doesn't involve any Test to determine what perception is under
control. And your recent tirade about my failure to answer your
"simple question" sounds to me like an attempt to imply that I am
evading some crucial point when, in fact, I've told you several
times that I don't know what the question is.

I should have said that your debates consist mainly of questionable
evidence and Starr chamber interrogation techniques.

You don't even fully understand the implications of the system
equations from which emerges the behavioral illusion. If you did,
you wouldn't be asserting like a damned ignorant fool that
nothing about the organism can be learned from psychophysical
experiments. What a crock!

It would really help a lot if you would explain the true
implications of the system equations from which emerges the
behavioral illusion because I'm not the only damned ignorant
fool here who things that you can learn nothing (less than nothing,
actually, since you actually think that you _are_ learning
something) about the organism from _conventional_ psychophysical
experiments (note that Bill and I have explained that you can
learn plenty from psychophysical experiments aimed at testing
to determine the perception that is controlled; such an experiment
is not a conventional psychophysical experiment).

Me (completely losing my tact) --

After 3+ years on this net you have contributed almost nothing
to the development of PCT science in terms of observation
and analysis.

Bruce replies:

Still beats your contribution over the past 3+ years, hands down.

I deserve that;-)

The behavioral illusion does not apply to the test conditions I
described, and you have not been able to argue otherwise.

That's because I don't know what test conditions you are talking
about. If the Test conditions you described constituted a Test
for the controlled variable, then I agree that the behavioral
illusion does not apply.

At least I don't cloak unsupportable opinion as "implications"
of PCT and then claim that opposition to that opinion is
opposition to PCT.

What unsupportable opinion did I say was an implication of PCT?
The behavioral illusion? If so, what was the unsupportable
opinion part? That experiments (such as conventional psychophysical
experiments) run without any Test to determine the perception under
control tell us nothing about the subject? If so, why do you
consider this opinoin "unsupportable"?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/