"Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Nov 25, 12:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >> In article >> <8e72f34b-4acb-4e8d-9797-f3b217e4e...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, >> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > So, we know from modern particle physics that the particle, is both >> > particle, and wave. >> >> What we do know is that those things we sometimes regard as being >> small-and-particle-like things have some behaviors that are wave-like. >> >> What those "things"REALLY are, we do not know. >> >> And most of the time, don't much care, as long as our descriptions of >> how we expect them to behave match our observations of how they do >> behave! >> -- > > > Well that's simple, you're not a conscientious mathematician, who > cares. > > Heh, you describe exactly the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.
Let's add that fallacy to the enormous list of things Russell doesn't understand.
-- Jesse F. Hughes Playin' dismal hollers for abysmal dollars, Those were the days, best I can recall. -- Austin Lounge Lizards, "Rocky Byways"