*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2997
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2020, 06:51:33 AM »
Quoting example/tutorial;

Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text

Big block of text reply
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text

Quote
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text

Big block of text reply
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text


I'm not interested in changing what's easiest for me for the benefit of someone who doesn't care about improving things for readers, but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary, there's nothing I could do they wouldn't complain about.

JRowe;

Surely you can appreciate that for anyone coming to the thread, whether new reader or previous contributor, that it's far clearer to have the attributions on the quotes than not?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2997
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2020, 07:33:43 AM »
You cannot describe anything in the physical world to any degree of accuracy without accounting for, y'know, physics, physical sciences.

Back to my post at #32 for those who want to see what we're referring to;

All we need to know is the height of the towers, and optionally the distance between. Don't need to know what the towers are made of. Don't need to know their properties, in terms of strength, malleability, etc.

All we need know is the height of each, and optionally the distance between.

No?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2020, 09:58:21 AM »
Quote
Surely you can appreciate that for anyone coming to the thread, whether new reader or previous contributor, that it's far clearer to have the attributions on the quotes than not?
Not to the degree that would justify all the fuss that's being made over it. Attribution doesn't matter nearly so much as content. If they're reading the thread there are, what, one or two posts between each of mine? And quoted in order, clearly separated. It shouldn't be hard for anyone that's not just trying to find something to complain about to sort between. The subjects are distinct so there shouldn't be any confusion.

Quote
All we need to know is the height of the towers, and optionally the distance between. Don't need to know what the towers are made of. Don't need to know their properties, in terms of strength, malleability, etc.

All we need know is the height of each, and optionally the distance between.

No?
And, again, how space functions, how the means by which we're measuring that distance functions... Did you really think I'd forget about that? Same as I said before, pretending I didn't helps no one. No one's ever been talking about what the towers were made of, that's just a particularly blatant straw man from you to try and evade what I did bring up.

You are doing the same thing I pointed out. You are acting as though the only variables are the things that would be variables under the fixed model of RET. That is a completely useless standpoint to take when you are trying to make a claim that applies to other models. If we followed your logic science would be mired even more in tradition than it is because you'd never be able to look at anything new, you'd just stick with what's established.
Let's even keep this to RET. The speed at which you travelled from one tower to the other would affect the distance you travelled, if you reached relativistic speeds. How do you account for that from merely building the towers? And that's your own model still, we aren't talking whole other systems of physics, your argument is based on far, far too many assumptions about what does and doesn't matter. If space isn't uniform, has properties that depend on location, if light or whatever means you use to measure doesn't travel in as straight a line as you think... what will you do then?
Science functions by testing claims, not just assuming some things don't matter. You have a whole host more testing to allow for before you'd have any reliable way to gauge what's even beginning to happen between the towers, and you're refusing to do any of it. That's not science.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2020, 12:59:43 PM »
Quote
Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"?  Source please?
I am aware. You are not, the context in which you use those words become clear. You have already been called out on treating established science as gospel, as if it were proven mathematically and not justified scientifically. You're just, as ever, wholesale inventing things so you can act superior.
Are you claiming science isn't concerned with the most likely outcome? That seems pretty basic to me. Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible. It'd be far, far weirder if science wanted you to accept the least likely possibility.

This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.  Lets look at what you actually said.

Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome.

Look at my question I asked in response to that, I'm asking you to clarify this statement. A simple, direct question. I even quoted your exact words.

Your reaction is to put words into my mouth, claiming I'm saying something I didn't, then you spend the rest of your reply arguing about the thing I never said. This is called a straw man argument.

This is the scientific method:

Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.

You claimed science concerns itself with "merely the most likely outcome" which is not any of those. So I ask again. Show your source.

You do the same thing later.

Quote
"If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested.  Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.
You do realize that isn't an answer, right? You even almost get the quetsion right, but you still can't respond with more than 'because I say so!'
Why? What's gained by the extra test?

No, it's not because I say so, it's because that is how the scientific method is defined and used. You were taught this in high school. If you went to college you were taught it again there. Don't pretend I'm just making it up. Did you not understand my point about a hypothesis and a theory?

Please show me you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. I'm using these terms the way science defines them, just to be clear.

Forget everything, let's simplify this even more, brute abstracts so you don't get any more of your god-awful tedious run-around.
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run.

That is what you are saying. You are certifiable at this point.

No that is NOT what I am saying.  Once again you are putting words into my mouth, then using those to argue against. I never said that. Quote it if I did.

Let me tell you what I actually would say to those three things.

"Scientific theory A predicts B."
Ok, this is how science works. A scientific Theory predicts something. That is what makes it a Theory and not a Hypothesis. Correct.

"If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold. "
This is also true, it is how science works.  If you show a counter example to a prediction, it disproves the Theory. This is how Theories are tested. Correct.

"If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run."
This is incorrect, and I do not agree with it. What would happen is this. I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.

From there I have a few options. If I'm confident my theory is right I can re-run those older tests to make sure they are correct. If I still get the same results then I sulk and will be forced to abandon or fix my new theory. Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time. Theories are trashed constantly. Science is not a single belief, nothing is ever accepted as absolute and eternal proof. Theories can always be disproved given the right evidence. Nothing is beyond questioning, but you have to follow the evidence.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2997
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2020, 02:21:24 PM »
Quote
(Tumeni said) All we need to know is the height of the towers, and optionally the distance between. Don't need to know what the towers are made of. Don't need to know their properties, in terms of strength, malleability, etc. All we need know is the height of each, and optionally the distance between.

No?

No one's ever been talking about what the towers were made of, that's just a particularly blatant straw man from you to try and evade what I did bring up.

All you brought up was the "physics" of the situation, so I made my best guess at what you meant by that. What DID you mean by it? The relationship between the two is governed by their geometry.

You are doing the same thing I pointed out. You are acting as though the only variables are the things that would be variables under the fixed model of RET.

It's got nothing to do with RET, there's no reason that simple Pythagorean geometry should vary between FET and RET

The speed at which you travelled from one tower to the other would affect the distance you travelled, if you reached relativistic speeds. How do you account for that from merely building the towers?

I don't need to, since travel between the towers does not form part of an observation from one to the other. You seem to be keen to introduce this as a straw man.

If space isn't uniform, has properties that depend on location, if light or whatever means you use to measure doesn't travel in as straight a line as you think... what will you do then?

First prove to us that space is not "uniform", etc. to the extent that the observation would be affected

Science functions by testing claims, not just assuming some things don't matter. You have a whole host more testing to allow for before you'd have any reliable way to gauge what's even beginning to happen between the towers, and you're refusing to do any of it. That's not science.

If all that you can come up with for "what happens between the towers" is to appeal to as-yet-undocumented factors in a big "What if...", then why should I be expected to account for them?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2020, 02:54:38 PM »
Quote
This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.
What are you talking about? You want a source? For what, the scientific method? The strength of science isn't that it's true because some bloke said it, it's true because it can be demonstrably shown to be so. I didn't provide a source because that was a stupid question as you have to know, what kind of thing do you expect for a source of the scientific method? There's no Bible of science, that's the whole point of it, instead there are explanations of why it holds. That's what I gave because that's all science should need.

As I pointed out:
"Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible."
ie, a hypothesis is backed up by experiments, and by the step you keep omitting of actually analysing how much of the hypothesis has been tested.

You seem to be relying on the flawed idea that a test can only support one hypothesis. That seems to be underlying a lot of your claims, and it's obviously unjustifiable. Let's talk, say, wave interference patterns, you have the existing theory of how water waves that pass through two slits will interfere with each other for strictly physical reasons, and the out-there theory that actually invisible fairies will get in the way whenever the waves cross. perform the experiments, send the waves through the slits, the result will be in line with both theories.
However, the fairy portion of the latter theory has not been tested or verified at all, so it is not considered to be equal with the former theory. There's a reason we don't believe in fairies. Thus, we favor the most likely of the two theories.
That is all I have ever been saying. Stop getting mad just because you don't like the fact I'm the one saying it.

Quote
I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
You assume everything established is right. You assume that every thing submitted is above question, that no one could ever have made an oversight, thus if something gets published it must have passed the test and no publisher could ever have slipped up.
Beyond that, 'no new test would be needed to reject it.' So you actually agree with what I'm saying, you're just throwing a tantrum for no reason.







Quote
The relationship between the two is governed by their geometry.
It would be really, really great if you could stop completely ignoring every post I have made to just obstinately repeat this.

Quote
I don't need to, since travel between the towers does not form part of an observation from one to the other.
You originally talked about the distance between the towers so, er, yeah, travel between them seems pretty important as far as distance goes. But, sure, it isn't strictly relevant, that is why it was only brought up as an illustration, very clearly, you just ignored the actual intent so you could claim straw man and avoid admitting your thought experiment was flawed.

Quote
First prove to us that space is not "uniform", etc. to the extent that the observation would be affected
Why? You're the one making a claim here, if you can't account for alternatives then your situation seems to be lacking.
I'd be more than happy to have this discussion, but not while you are dishonestly peddling this thought experiment as if it actually proves something rather than assuming its own conclusion.

Quote
If all that you can come up with for "what happens between the towers" is to appeal to as-yet-undocumented factors in a big "What if...", then why should I be expected to account for them?
When your whole purpose in bringing up the towers is to criticise 'a big what if...' then the contents of that what if would seem to be very relevant indeed. Everything outside of RET is 'undocumented' from your standpoint, so again, the case you are making is entirely circular.

Yes, if you only pay attention to the mainstream RE view of the world and the limited readings of experiments made, RET will be the only logical conclusion. You're not going to find anyone who'd disagree, but it also doesn't prove all that much. If RET is true, the RET is true. That's your premise and that's your conclusion. Why are you surprised a FEer takes issue with your premise?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2020, 04:20:29 PM »
Quote
This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.
What are you talking about? You want a source? For what, the scientific method? The strength of science isn't that it's true because some bloke said it, it's true because it can be demonstrably shown to be so. I didn't provide a source because that was a stupid question as you have to know, what kind of thing do you expect for a source of the scientific method? There's no Bible of science, that's the whole point of it, instead there are explanations of why it holds. That's what I gave because that's all science should need.

You said and I quote: "Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome."

That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome.  You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that''s what you said. You said that science is only concerned with one thing, and that's probability. Which is wrong.

Quote
I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
You assume everything established is right. You assume that every thing submitted is above question, that no one could ever have made an oversight, thus if something gets published it must have passed the test and no publisher could ever have slipped up.
Beyond that, 'no new test would be needed to reject it.' So you actually agree with what I'm saying, you're just throwing a tantrum for no reason.

First, I said no new test would be needed to reject the paper. The author is then free to decide to run more tests or accept the rejection.

Second, wow. Just wow. Did you just go on a rant about something I literally covered in the next paragraph you decided to not quote? How can you claim I am "assuming everything established is right" when I said the opposite RIGHT BELOW the quote you cut off?

From there I have a few options. If I'm confident my theory is right I can re-run those older tests to make sure they are correct. If I still get the same results then I sulk and will be forced to abandon or fix my new theory. Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time. Theories are trashed constantly. Science is not a single belief, nothing is ever accepted as absolute and eternal proof. Theories can always be disproved given the right evidence. Nothing is beyond questioning, but you have to follow the evidence.

Really. Read that again.  I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".

I'm truly confused here, did you simply not notice that paragraph? Did you intentionally ignore it? I would really like you to explain how you interpreted that, and please, quite telling me what I think.



*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2020, 05:33:18 PM »
Quote
That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome.  You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.
I haven't 'repeatedly refused to discuss it,' I've answered it twice now, you just didn't want to hear it. Everything's about probability. You can't prove that you're not a brain in a vat being made to hallucinate various vivid things, it's just impossible to test for and you need to reject it as, not impossible, but sufficiently improbable to not need to constantly footnote every claim with that possibility. Instead of telling me what I said, how about reading?
Rejecting the absurd is focusing only on the most likely options. You can't have one without the other. I notice you again completely refused to engage with that.

Quote
Really. Read that again.  I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".
Because of the way you reframed my question. Read what I said and look at the actual context. You assumed that by the time something was published in a journal, automatically, it would have been compared to past tests already and that there would not have been a single oversight, a single missed opportunity. You completely changed the question, flipped it around, so that you could insist that it was compared and instead you started talking about the validity of the test and not the scientific community. So, yes, you assumed the system worked from the start, exactly as I accused you of, something you have made incredibly clear twice now by refusing to engaging with even the possibility that peer review, performed by humans and not Gods, might have missed some obscure little test.
You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes, you just shift around where that divine guidance is depending on your mood. Why else would you consistently avoid answering the question you were actually asked?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2020, 05:54:31 PM »
Quote
That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome.  You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.
I haven't 'repeatedly refused to discuss it,' I've answered it twice now, you just didn't want to hear it. Everything's about probability. You can't prove that you're not a brain in a vat being made to hallucinate various vivid things, it's just impossible to test for and you need to reject it as, not impossible, but sufficiently improbable to not need to constantly footnote every claim with that possibility. Instead of telling me what I said, how about reading?
Rejecting the absurd is focusing only on the most likely options. You can't have one without the other. I notice you again completely refused to engage with that.

Because sigh, you're again ignoring the question but I can see I'm getting nowere with this so I'm going to drop it.

Quote
Really. Read that again.  I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".
Because of the way you reframed my question. Read what I said and look at the actual context. You assumed that by the time something was published in a journal, automatically, it would have been compared to past tests already and that there would not have been a single oversight, a single missed opportunity. You completely changed the question, flipped it around, so that you could insist that it was compared and instead you started talking about the validity of the test and not the scientific community. So, yes, you assumed the system worked from the start, exactly as I accused you of, something you have made incredibly clear twice now by refusing to engaging with even the possibility that peer review, performed by humans and not Gods, might have missed some obscure little test.
You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes, you just shift around where that divine guidance is depending on your mood. Why else would you consistently avoid answering the question you were actually asked?

I'm not even sure what to make of this. Let me go back and read it again, just like I did before I wrote my response.

Ok. I read it again and still don't see what you're getting at. You just keep yelling about, something? Now I'm claiming reviewers are perfect? What? Where did I ever say that?

I'm getting tired of responding to you when you keep making up stuff I'm saying, and when I call you on it you just make up more stuff. I am asking you again nicely to QUIT making up things that I said. Nearly all of my replies are asking you to QUOTE me instead of making up stuff. You have yet to do so.

Look at what you just said: "You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes"

How did you miss when I said this MORE THAN ONCE: "From there I have a few options. If I'm confident my theory is right I can re-run those older tests to make sure they are correct. If I still get the same results then I sulk and will be forced to abandon or fix my new theory. Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time. Theories are trashed constantly. Science is not a single belief, nothing is ever accepted as absolute and eternal proof. Theories can always be disproved given the right evidence. Nothing is beyond questioning, but you have to follow the evidence."

How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?

At this point I have no idea what you're even asking me anymore. I've answered your scenarios half a dozen times now, but clearly, you are not reading them.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2020, 05:58:34 PM »
Quote
Because sigh, you're again ignoring the question but I can see I'm getting nowere with this so I'm going to drop it.
I answered the damn thing, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. get over yourself. What would you call 'rejecting the absurd possibilities' if not 'ignoring the highly unlikely options?'


Quote
How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?
Because, as ever, you changed the question so that rather than being asked about what happens when the peer review process makes a mistake, you assumed it would never do such a thing and started ranting about something completely disconnected to what you were actually asked and started throwing a temper tantrum and are refusing to even consider the possibility that I might dare question your Holy Scientific Community. Like I pointed out in the last post. And the one before that.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2020, 06:01:33 PM »
I said:

Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice

You started rambling about what would happen if you submitted A as a paper and it got reviewed and they looked over every stray experiment and paper made over the last few centuries and found the old test and...
How can you with any kind of straight face even pretend you were addressing what I said when you were very clearly inventing your own scenario entirely?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2020, 06:10:48 PM »
Quote
How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?
Because, as ever, you changed the question so that rather than being asked about what happens when the peer review process makes a mistake, you assumed it would never do such a thing and started ranting about something completely disconnected to what you were actually asked and started throwing a temper tantrum and are refusing to even consider the possibility that I might dare question your Holy Scientific Community. Like I pointed out in the last post. And the one before that.

You keep saying I changed the question but I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Where did I EVER say that the peer review process couldn't make a mistake? Where? Can you point me to where I said that?

Let me repeat for the third, or fourth time, I'mm losing count: "Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time."

So how exactly do you think papers with mistakes get published without the peer review.. making a mistake?

You seem to somehow think I'm claiming science is perfect and never make mistakes and no matter how many times I say otherwise, you just keep coming up with new ways to say it.

Every response of yours is just another claim that I believe this, or I believe that and never quote where I said it. Just like the last post, and the post before that, and this one.

Please, for the sake of all that is just, quote where I said ANY of this nonsense. Or quit saying that I did.

Holy Scientific Community? Who do you think you are talking to right now, because I'm pretty sure I never claimed to belong to some kind of science cult.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2020, 06:14:04 PM »
I said:

Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice

You started rambling about what would happen if you submitted A as a paper and it got reviewed and they looked over every stray experiment and paper made over the last few centuries and found the old test and...
How can you with any kind of straight face even pretend you were addressing what I said when you were very clearly inventing your own scenario entirely?

So let me get this straight, you won't accept anything more than a YES or NO to your questions?

If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?

I took your question and tried to explain in reality how it would play out.  I'm sorry if all the detail confused you.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2020, 06:21:47 PM »
Quote
Where did I EVER say that the peer review process couldn't make a mistake? Where? Can you point me to where I said that?
AGAIN, you refused to engage with the situation actually presented where it would have made a mistake, instead taking as a premise that an error was caught in the peer review process and the situation I described just didn't exist.
How many times are you going to need that repeated before you pay the slightest bit of attention?

'Say' otherwise all you want, but the way you act means far more than empty words. You have, over the course of this thread, been pathologically incapable of paying any more than lip service to the ideas of there being flaws in the scientific community, and when pushed you always fall back on the premise that it works, that there will never be any flaws, that the approach you describe is the best approach, not for any reason, just because it is. No one ever says they're in a cult, but the way they act can sure as hell tell you. The amount of times you've needed to just straight-up lie to deny the existence of the answers to questions you can't afford to have answered is staggering.
You can repeat "Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time," all you want, but that doesn't mean you're factoring that into any of your reasoning.

Quote
If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?
Once more: when you completely invent a new situation that has nothing to do with what you are asked, when you don't explain your reasoning as to your response to the situation but rather invent a whole other question, you are rambling.

"explain in reality how it would play out."
Same as ever. 'in reality' it is unthinkable to you that a mistake would be made, you keep saying, oh, no, mistakes might be made, there might be oversights, but when you were actually asked a question about what would happen, your step one was 'the peer review process caught all the flaws! Don't question it!'

So for the umpteenth bloody time as apparently I need to repeat things this often for it to sink in:
I asked you about how we can expose the flaws in a currently stated theory, whether a new test would be necessary or we could rely on an old
Your view of what would happen 'in reality' was that it would never become a theory, and here's how we would redo an old test.

Are you seriously going to pretend those are at all the same?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2020, 06:41:48 PM »
Quote
If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?
Once more: when you completely invent a new situation that has nothing to do with what you are asked, when you don't explain your reasoning as to your response to the situation but rather invent a whole other question, you are rambling.

"explain in reality how it would play out."
Same as ever. 'in reality' it is unthinkable to you that a mistake would be made, you keep saying, oh, no, mistakes might be made, there might be oversights, but when you were actually asked a question about what would happen, your step one was 'the peer review process caught all the flaws! Don't question it!'

So for the umpteenth bloody time as apparently I need to repeat things this often for it to sink in:
I asked you about how we can expose the flaws in a currently stated theory, whether a new test would be necessary or we could rely on an old
Your view of what would happen 'in reality' was that it would never become a theory, and here's how we would redo an old test.

Are you seriously going to pretend those are at all the same?

Holy crap.

Is all of this because in my example I imagined a reviewer catching a mistake instead of the mistake being caught after publishing like you were imagining?

Pages and pages of nonsense because of THAT detail? Which changes nothing anyway.

Note that ALL you said was this:

Quote
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice

Sorry but that's really vague. I was trying to turn it into an actual scenario by describing how a paper gets published, and what happens if there are mistakes. And you got all angry because I chose the mistake to be found before publishing instead of after?

If it will make you feel better, lets let the mistake play out the way you want.

I publish a paper about theory A that predicts B.
It's peer reviewed and passes.
Later someone discovers it failed to reference paper X that proves B is wrong.

Now, your question is: Do new tests need to be run?

How the hell should I know in this made-up example.  If paper X is solid and has been repeated and paper A has not, then nobody will run any new tests.  If paper X is just a one-of experiment that's never been done before, then they will likely try and run it again.

Or more mistakes could be made and not be uncovered for years, or ever. Science isn't perfect. Is that what you want to hear?

Can we put this to rest now?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #75 on: April 18, 2020, 10:00:18 PM »
Quote
Pages and pages of nonsense because of THAT detail?
It's been like half a dozen posts, don't overreact. And, well, yes, it was kind of crucial to the whole discussion. You've done this before. If I'm asking what it would take to catch a flaw in a claim, deciding you don't want to talk about claims and instead shifting the whole topic to something else is not a minor 'detail.' You exchange cause and effect and act like they're somehow symmetrical. That's bs.

And 'vague,' really? It's generally applicable. That tends to be rather important when we're talking about anything wide-reaching. Stop with this goddamn incessant point-scoring. if you don't want to actually discuss anything, piss off.

Quote
How the hell should I know in this made-up example.
Ergo, it doesn't all go one way, hence my point. If you can't make a clear answer then clearly on some occasions old tests alone must suffice.

Quote
Can we put this to rest now?
I would really fucking hope so. How many times have I pointed out you literally agreed with me, and you still wanted to throw a temper tantrum anyway because you couldn't bear the fact an FEer made a point you had to agree with?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.