@ blackjack
Yes, technically it wouldn't be attraction, instead it would be the air on either side pushing it. But that results in a macroscopic effect referred to as attraction.
The difference, in scepti's view at least (if not reality), is not semantic - it's actual. It merely APPEARS to be attraction, but attraction is not a thing in reality. In the exact same way that we do not "suck" liquid/gas/matter into straws or vacuums, and for the same reasons! It is the push from the atmosphere doing the work, and our "sucking" merely creates a pressure differential that allows that.
Conventional physics relies upon attractive and repulsive interactions. It is not simply all push.
Not traditionally, no. And even in "modern" conventional physics there is no mechanism for it. It is taken on faith, as many other things are.
Again, only having push/collisions only works for gas, and to a lesser extent fluids.
What scepti is describing, potentially, reconciles and allows for it to work for everything. At least, that is what it appears they are attempting to do / have already concluded.
It is trivial to show that these poles will repel.
It is trivial to IMAGINE that they will POSSIBLY repel. It is also trivial to imagine that they won't. In imagination, all things are possible. In reality, very few of our imaginings bare any resemblance to reality (yes, even when the conceptualizations with formalized mathematical description are useful). This is why experiment is not optional in the scientific method.
But this causes issues for interactions with magnetic materials which are not magnets, raising the question as to why they are attracted to this pole rather than repelled by it.
Potentially, yes. Though if you imagine the magnetic materials (which are not magnetized, at the outset) as small magnets themselves, it is easy to imagine how they align themselves properly on either side of the magnet and effectively become a part of it (as they do in the current mainstream conception, albeit for different supposed reasons).
For that, he switches to the other pole, where the flow causes things to be drawn towards it, and if something obstructs the flow, the difference in pressure (or in this case the abundance of magnetons) causes it to be force towards it. And at the more precise level, it would always be a gradient causing the motion.
This could be a problem, though I don't think we necessarily have a solid enough grasp on what scepti is thinking to be certain it IS.
One could actually conclude it could go either way, especially if you consider magnets of different strengths.
For example if you bring the abundant side of a strong magnet to the deficient side of a weak magnet, then the weak magnet can't accept enough and thus is pushed away.
Exactly! In imagination all things are possible. There is GOOD reason that experiment cannot be substituted for "imagination"/"musings"/"thought experiment" (or observation, or anything else) in the scientific method. It's to figure out what is ACTUALLY happening (ideally), not merely what we imagine is.
Except this runs counter to every other type of flow, such as vacuum cleaners, where the flow is so great it sucks up little bits of dust.
And you have an abundance on the other side trying to push in, pushing them together.
So them trying to rush into the gap, with them coming from all around, will simply push them together.
I see what you are saying. However, in this case - the proposed thing is so small that it cannot be fully "sealed" out.
In the case of one vacuum cleaner, we both understand that the atmospheric pressure is forcing its way in creating the flow and the illusion that the vacuum is "sucking".
In the case of 2 vacuum cleaners, I do agree that when the two vacuum hoses touch they will appear to attract one another until they lock together creating a sustained "airtight" (not really, but go with it) chamber which the air outside cannot penetrate. This may not be analogous/applicable to scepti's description because the magnets themselves may already be saturated with as many magnetons as they can hold. As a result the "free magnetons" rush into the space between the magnets causing repulsion where we would expect the illusion of attraction.
I wouldn't say trying to prop up a failed idea is acting in good faith.
I wouldn't say that describing it as a failed idea (which was your clear preexisting bias from the outset) simply because you can IMAGINE flaws in it is acting to earnestly evaluate / understand / test it.
Repeating the same lie wont magically make it true.
That's true. I am simply stating facts.
You can't hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if your definitions are wrong. As I've said, and you cannot refute, thought experiment is ONLY useful, in a scientific context, to generate hypothesis. Hypothesis can ONLY be validated or invalidated through experiment, and this is semantically inarguable. It is a part of the scientific method, and you have no obligation to learn the correct definition of it. You can remain incorrect if you wish.
I have clearly explained why thought experiments are a key part of science.
You have been miseducated to that effect. Thought "experiments" are not experiments, and they are not a part of the scientific method (i.e. NOT science). This isn't an arguable point.
The point is the results have already been collected by previous experiments.
So you keep saying with undue certainty. But the proposed magneton hasn't been expounded upon thoroughly enough to even begin imagining an experimental setup. You are in too much of a hurry to avoid doing any science.
If Scepti's model requires magnets to have an attractive pole and a repulsive pole, such that 2 attractive poles attract each other and 2 repulsive poles repel, you don't need to carry out a physical experiment to test this.
Not certainly, no. You perhaps need to understand a new mechanism, or new property - but nothing is irreconcilable just because you have a thought that suggests it might be. We learn through experiment in science. Not merely musings while we sit on our asses.
That means we don't need to test it.
My whole point is that currently we can't test it (experimentally, the only "test" that exists in science). We would both have to understand more thoroughly what the proposed magneton is and how to measure and manipulate it. We have none of that, and only your failed "thought experiments"/musings.
Or if you can demonstrate it is unsound.
It is true that we could potentially find the hypothesis not valid at the outset, but only with rigorous criteria to do so first - which vary depending on source. As I said, most physics dept's would declare the current formulation of hypothesis (mine, not scepti's) invalid because it invokes theoretical things (things not known to empirical science), namely the magneton.
You even tried to appeal to one yourself, you just didn't call it a thought experiment.
It was merely for demonstration. It doesn't remove the necessity for experimentation, and never could. It would be unscientific, by definition. A deviation from the scientific method. I am not denying the use of "thought experiment" to generate hypothesis - but that is the extent of its scientific use.
What Clickljama's sometimes presents as thought experiments are not thought experiments because he has no idea what the results would actually be and instead just assumes them. That means they are not thought experiments.
This is why we test our conceptions ("thought experiments" if you must) against reality by experiment. I can appreciate that if the experiment has already been carried out, that we can reference that experiment. In this case, that is plainly not possible until more detail is given. That's the whole point, which you seem committed to missing.