[THIS WOULD GET DELETED]Other than wasting time and effort, there’s nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel. At least there’s a useful result, even if it’s a duplicated and redundant one.
But this is just reinventing the perpetual motion machine. Not only is it a massive falling-into-error, it’s retracing the steps of countless others that have spent the last few centuries wandering in circles. Following in the footsteps of others is only laudable when those footsteps lead somewhere.
There’s not a single operational definition here, just claims that refer to unspoken, unspecified assumptions and assertions of desired conclusions. Eliezer, you’ve missed your calling. You should have been a theologian. Making definitive proclamations about things you can’t define and have a bunch of incoherent beliefs about is clearly your raison d’être.[/THIS WOULD GET DELETED]
[THIS WOULD GET DELETED]Other than wasting time and effort, there’s nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel. At least there’s a useful result, even if it’s a duplicated and redundant one.
But this is just reinventing the perpetual motion machine. Not only is it a massive falling-into-error, it’s retracing the steps of countless others that have spent the last few centuries wandering in circles. Following in the footsteps of others is only laudable when those footsteps lead somewhere.
There’s not a single operational definition here, just claims that refer to unspoken, unspecified assumptions and assertions of desired conclusions. Eliezer, you’ve missed your calling. You should have been a theologian. Making definitive proclamations about things you can’t define and have a bunch of incoherent beliefs about is clearly your raison d’être.[/THIS WOULD GET DELETED]
Was “Operational definitions!” the entirety of this guy’s philosophy?