Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

No More Hole!

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Hi All, I ve just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication with the hole. I don t know If I ve achieved much and I haven t won anything, as
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 30 11:53 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      I've just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication with the hole. I don't know If I've achieved much and I haven't 'won' anything, as that's impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies in that place of despair.

      "It's been an interesting exchange that we've had over Steiner, Ostwald and materialism over the past year. You've demonstrated that you don't understand primary qualities (for instance that they are measurable) and cannot therefore have any understanding of their immense significance for the development and success of Western science over the last four hundred years (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach history of science at an Ivy League institution). In our discussion of 'materialism' you have failed to provide a single definition of what you understand by 'matter' and have instead spent the time attacking the three standard philosophical definitions that I provided and that I demonstrated matched the understanding of Ostwald and Steiner. This indicates that you do not understand what materialism is (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach philosophy at the same institution). In spite of this failure on your part you have continued to argue that I don't understand materialism, that I use the term vaguely, too sweepingly and in some specialised, 'anthroposophical' manner. To bolster the weakness of your position you have not scrupled to the use of the full range of logical fallacies, the making of false assertions and imputations, as well as invidious appeals to emotion. None of the above is what one would expect from a 'scholar' and 'historian' such as you claim yourself to be; it is rather what one would expect of a charlatan or what others have termed an 'illusionist'.

      Yours for truth,

      T.

      Ted Wrinch"

      T.

      Ted Wrinch
    • val2160
      ... with the hole. I don t know If I ve achieved much and I haven t won anything, as that s impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies in that place
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi All,
        >
        > I've just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication with the hole. I don't know If I've achieved much and I haven't 'won' anything, as that's impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies in that place of despair.
        >
        > "It's been an interesting exchange that we've had over Steiner, Ostwald and materialism over the past year. You've demonstrated that you don't understand primary qualities (for instance that they are measurable) and cannot therefore have any understanding of their immense significance for the development and success of Western science over the last four hundred years (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach history of science at an Ivy League institution). In our discussion of 'materialism' you have failed to provide a single definition of what you understand by 'matter' and have instead spent the time attacking the three standard philosophical definitions that I provided and that I demonstrated matched the understanding of Ostwald and Steiner. This indicates that you do not understand what materialism is (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach philosophy at the same institution). In spite of this failure on your part you have continued to argue that I don't understand materialism, that I use the term vaguely, too sweepingly and in some specialised, 'anthroposophical' manner. To bolster the weakness of your position you have not scrupled to the use of the full range of logical fallacies, the making of false assertions and imputations, as well as invidious appeals to emotion. None of the above is what one would expect from a 'scholar' and 'historian' such as you claim yourself to be; it is rather what one would expect of a charlatan or what others have termed an 'illusionist'.
        >
        > Yours for truth,
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch"

        "For example, you sometimes seem to believe that materialism is the same
        thing as naïve realism, just as Ted sometimes seems to believe that materialism
        is the same thing as quantification and mathematization and measurability."

        Readability index calculator

        Paste your sample text in the field below. A longer text provides a more accurate measurement. Select measurement method and click 'calculate score' to see the score for your text. The result is displayed below the form.

        Do you have a readability formula for a different language? Pleasepost an article comment and I'll add it here.


        Result

        Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).

        Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 23.
        Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: -5.

        The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score indicates how easy a text is to read. A high score implies an easy text. In comparison comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get a score below 10.

        The Flesch-Kincaid Grade level indicates the grade a person will have to have reached to be able to understand the text. E.g. a grade level of 7 means that a seventh grader will be able to understand the text.


        http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php

      • val2160
        Hmmm, never actually seen a negative score before so maybe another index will yield a better result: Indication of the number of years of formal education that
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmmm, never actually seen a negative score before so maybe another index will yield a better result:




          Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading
          Gunning Fog index :22.00

          Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text : 
          Coleman Liau index :15.32
          Flesh Kincaid Grade level :20.31
          ARI (Automated Readability Index) :21.64
          SMOG :17.49




          Benefit from IT provides the following typical Fog Index scores:

          Typical Fog Index Scores
          Fog IndexResources
          6 TV  guides, The Bible, Mark Twain
          8Reader's Digest
          8 - 10Most popular novels
          10Time, Newsweek
          11Wall Street Journal
          14The Times, The Guardian
          15 - 20Academic papers
          Over 20Only government sites can get away with this, because you can't ignore them.
          Over 30The government is covering something up

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
          > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi All,
          > >
          > > I've just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication
          > with the hole. I don't know If I've achieved much and I haven't 'won'
          > anything, as that's impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies
          > in that place of despair.
          > >
          > > "It's been an interesting exchange that we've had over Steiner,
          > Ostwald and materialism over the past year. You've demonstrated that you
          > don't understand primary qualities (for instance that they are
          > measurable) and cannot therefore have any understanding of their immense
          > significance for the development and success of Western science over the
          > last four hundred years (an interesting situation for someone who claims
          > to teach history of science at an Ivy League institution). In our
          > discussion of 'materialism' you have failed to provide a single
          > definition of what you understand by 'matter' and have instead spent the
          > time attacking the three standard philosophical definitions that I
          > provided and that I demonstrated matched the understanding of Ostwald
          > and Steiner. This indicates that you do not understand what materialism
          > is (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach philosophy
          > at the same institution). In spite of this failure on your part you have
          > continued to argue that I don't understand materialism, that I use the
          > term vaguely, too sweepingly and in some specialised, 'anthroposophical'
          > manner. To bolster the weakness of your position you have not scrupled
          > to the use of the full range of logical fallacies, the making of false
          > assertions and imputations, as well as invidious appeals to emotion.
          > None of the above is what one would expect from a 'scholar' and
          > 'historian' such as you claim yourself to be; it is rather what one
          > would expect of a charlatan or what others have termed an 'illusionist'.
          > >
          > > Yours for truth,
          > >
          > > T.
          > >
          > > Ted Wrinch"
          >
          > "For example, you sometimes seem to believe that materialism is the
          > samething as naïve realism, just as Ted sometimes seems to believe
          > that materialismis the same thing as quantification and mathematization
          > and measurability."
          > Readability index calculator
          > Paste your sample text in the field below. A longer text provides a more
          > accurate measurement. Select measurement method and click 'calculate
          > score' to see the score for your text. The result is displayed below the
          > form.
          >
          > Do you have a readability formula for a different language? Pleasepost
          > an article comment
          > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2005/measuring-text-readability/>
          > and I'll add it here.
          > * Text:Method: Flesch-Kincaid (English) LIX (Swedish,
          > Danish) Fernandez-Huerta (Spanish) Douma (Dutch)
          > Kandel & Moles (French) Result
          > Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).
          >
          > Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 23.
          > Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: -5.
          >
          > The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease
          > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid> score indicates how easy
          > a text is to read. A high score implies an easy text. In comparison
          > comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get a score below
          > 10.
          >
          > The Flesch-Kincaid Grade level indicates the grade a person will have to
          > have reached to be able to understand the text. E.g. a grade level of 7
          > means that a seventh grader will be able to understand the text.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php
          > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php>
          >
        • val2160
          Result Method used: LIX (Swedish). LIX value: 66. A low LIX value indicates better readability. According to the father of LIX, a text with a value of 20 is
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            Result

            Method used: LIX (Swedish).

            LIX value: 66.

            A low LIX value indicates better readability. According to the father of LIX, a text with a value of 20 is very easy to read. A value of 50 is a difficult text. Typical legalese has a LIX value of 50 and above. Childrens litterature has a typical LIX value of 27.


            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hmmm, never actually seen a negative score before so maybe another index
            > will yield a better result:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person
            > requires in order to easily understand the text on the first
            > readingGunning Fog index :22.00
            >
            > Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend
            > the text : Coleman Liau index :15.32Flesh Kincaid Grade level :20.31ARI
            > (Automated Readability Index) :21.64SMOG :17.49
            >
            >
            >
            > http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp
            > <http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp>
            >
            >
            > Benefit from IT <http://www.benefit-from-it.com/> provides the
            > following typical Fog Index scores:
            > Typical Fog Index ScoresFog IndexResources6TV guides, The Bible, Mark
            > Twain8Reader's Digest8 - 10Most popular novels10Time, Newsweek11Wall
            > Street Journal14The Times, The Guardian15 - 20Academic papersOver 20Only
            > government sites can get away with this, because you can't ignore
            > them.Over 30The government is covering something up
            > <http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp>
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
            > wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
            > > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Hi All,
            > > >
            > > > I've just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication
            > > with the hole. I don't know If I've achieved much and I haven't 'won'
            > > anything, as that's impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies
            > > in that place of despair.
            > > >
            > > > "It's been an interesting exchange that we've had over Steiner,
            > > Ostwald and materialism over the past year. You've demonstrated that
            > you
            > > don't understand primary qualities (for instance that they are
            > > measurable) and cannot therefore have any understanding of their
            > immense
            > > significance for the development and success of Western science over
            > the
            > > last four hundred years (an interesting situation for someone who
            > claims
            > > to teach history of science at an Ivy League institution). In our
            > > discussion of 'materialism' you have failed to provide a single
            > > definition of what you understand by 'matter' and have instead spent
            > the
            > > time attacking the three standard philosophical definitions that I
            > > provided and that I demonstrated matched the understanding of Ostwald
            > > and Steiner. This indicates that you do not understand what
            > materialism
            > > is (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach
            > philosophy
            > > at the same institution). In spite of this failure on your part you
            > have
            > > continued to argue that I don't understand materialism, that I use the
            > > term vaguely, too sweepingly and in some specialised,
            > 'anthroposophical'
            > > manner. To bolster the weakness of your position you have not scrupled
            > > to the use of the full range of logical fallacies, the making of false
            > > assertions and imputations, as well as invidious appeals to emotion.
            > > None of the above is what one would expect from a 'scholar' and
            > > 'historian' such as you claim yourself to be; it is rather what one
            > > would expect of a charlatan or what others have termed an
            > 'illusionist'.
            > > >
            > > > Yours for truth,
            > > >
            > > > T.
            > > >
            > > > Ted Wrinch"


            > > "For example, you sometimes seem to believe that materialism is the
            > > samething as naïve realism, just as Ted sometimes seems to believe
            > > that materialismis the same thing as quantification and
            > mathematization
            > > and measurability."


            > > Readability index calculator
            > > Paste your sample text in the field below. A longer text provides a
            > more
            > > accurate measurement. Select measurement method and click 'calculate
            > > score' to see the score for your text. The result is displayed below
            > the
            > > form.
            > >
            > > Do you have a readability formula for a different language? Pleasepost
            > > an article comment
            > >
            > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2005/measuring-text-readability/>
            > > and I'll add it here.
            > > * Text:Method: Flesch-Kincaid (English) LIX (Swedish,
            > > Danish) Fernandez-Huerta (Spanish) Douma (Dutch)
            > > Kandel & Moles (French) Result
            > > Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).
            > >
            > > Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 23.
            > > Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: -5.
            > >
            > > The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease
            > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid> score indicates how
            > easy
            > > a text is to read. A high score implies an easy text. In comparison
            > > comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get a score below
            > > 10.
            > >
            > > The Flesch-Kincaid Grade level indicates the grade a person will have
            > to
            > > have reached to be able to understand the text. E.g. a grade level of
            > 7
            > > means that a seventh grader will be able to understand the text.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php
            > > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php>
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.