Will academics EVER stop anthropomorphizing "probabilistic uncertainty"? It is something "seen" in "findings" AND (to say the least) not SOME THING. It may well be mainly connected to poor observations OR very preliminary "discoveries". Do people really believe that probabilistic uncertainty can be hard-wired?? Unless you have evidence in real and appropriate actual contexts, such as a naturalistic could SEE, OR at least AS seen sometime(s) in ontogeny with DIRECT OVERT EVIDENCE , then [otherwise] : STOP IT STOP! Understand?.
Your question does not make sense and contains bad English grammar
I can see that you are very upset, but it's not clear to me why. Can you explain what you mean?
Dear Respondents
If I make no sense to you : Is that mainly a reflection on you or on me?
I would delete it, but you have responded, so I can't. mynichecomp.com
Brad Jesness there is no reflection. There is a process of communication that is not going well. You successfully communicated dissatisfaction (whether you intended to or not!) but its source is not clear. I don't see how that reflects poorly on you or anyone else. It is just a phase of a discussion.
I am done HERE with this thread.(I would delete it but I cannot : because there are responses). No useless insults desired NOR empty OR memorized statements. Nor cheap empty "whatevers" else (or , just as well, NOT), to "puff" yourself up. Like "higher education" : cheap, cheap, cheap.
A special "finger" to those that believe if they haven't memorized it (with the "help" of a professor), they don't "know" it. For, such, know nothing.
Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman :
Specify. Specify. Or just shut the **** up.
Ronán Michael Conroy,
YOU "TRIED" WHAT ??? I saw, I see, NOTHING . AND : Who the hell is "WE"??
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts