Steven Sullivan wrote:
chung wrote:
lcw999 wrote:

However, one that has the "answers" tends to "poo-poo" the ear and
the ear-brain construct...one cannot measure this yet, therefore let
us ridicule this process...speak of illogic! An admission that their
toolset is incomplete in this arena.

You know, it seems like you always have the questions to "poo-poo" the
science and engineering .

Speaking of ridicule, I found this parody amusing
(found today over on avsforum.com):

//

Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.

Subjectivist: They might, and if they did it could be important.

Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.

Subjectivist: What if they had really big ears and flapped them rapidly?

Objectivist: They still couldn't fly.

Subjectivist: Are you saying that no matter how aerodynamic and powerful they were....

Objectivist: Well then they wouldn't be elephants.

Subjectivist: So you agree that it could happen.

Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.

Subjectivist: You just don't believe anything do you?

Objectivist: What?

Subjectivist: I've taken a poll, 75% of people believe in elephant flight.

Objectivist: 75% of people are stupid.

Subjectivist: You have your ideas and we have ours. Can't we all just get along?

Objectivist: Fool!

Subjectivist: Rude jerk!


Thanks, that just about captures the essence of some of the debates. Of
course, I'm biased .

Actually, there seems to be another line, or two, of attack he

Subjectivist: There are a lot of things we do not know. I suggest that
we step outside of the box, and look for ways to explain how an elephant
can fly. We just cannot ignore someone's anecdote that he's seen a
flying elephant.

Or:

Subjectivist: Since no one has proven conclusively that elephants do not
fly, how can anyone say elephants cannot fly? Some living objects can
fly, so why can't an elephant fly? Isn't the elephant a living object?

Sorry if anyone is offended. Feel free to make fun of the objectivists'
position.