Two questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
Not, stop Strawmaning the shit out of the...or is is an Avoiding The Issue logical fallacy. I'm honestly not sure which applies but one thing's for sure...you're obfuscating.
Nahhh, I'm not obfuscating. What I am doing is putting you in a corner and you are trying to find a way of getting out of it.
Let's do it this way.
These studies provides all the conditions, assumptions, equipment used, data collected, analysis techniques used, summary of results, conclusions, and citations to the sources for information/data used.
With everything you need already contained in the information that you asked for, why is the onus now on me to break it down for you?
Mike
The onus isn't on you to break it down.
I asked you two simple questions.
1. Do you believe the so called peer reviewed stuff and why?
You answer was: 1. It's not "so called peer reviewed stuff". It's testable and repeatable...you know, actual science. And, I don't believe it. I know it to be a fact.
I then asked you: If you know it to be a fact then you can explain how you proved it to be so....right?
2. Can you stand up and claim any of them as fact, if you were in a law court?
You answered: 2. I won't have to so the question is irrelevant.
I then went on to say:
Correct, you don't have to prove it in a law court...but if you were subpoenaed to give proof of what you claim as fact, could you do it and if so, how..... and if not, why?
So. basically you can refuse to answer and refuse to prove what you know to be factual but then again it just sets you right back into a corner where you cannot reason your way out of.
You don't know any facts.
What you do know is, you rely on papers that claim facts and accept them as your facts, without physical proof and absolutely without the ability to put anything in front of anyone to show your side to be correct.
If you want to argue that you are stating facts and you could supply those facts to a court of law, if asked to do so, then surely you would be only too happy to lay them out on here and shut me up.....right?
Yes. I do refuse and I'll tell you why. One of your most well-known tactics is comments similar to "you don't know", "you just believe", “you haven’t done it yourself”; usually followed by some form of “you only have faith without evidence” kind of statement.
The whole goal here is to discredit the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. It's called an Appeal to Accomplishment logical fallacy. And, it is your primary go to reply in every single discussion. Your scripted narrative is designed to NEVER address any argument presented. You always make it about the person making the argument and never, ever the argument itself. I refuse to play your game.
The simple fact is, when I brought up peer reviewed published research you said "
Name one.". I named 7 and provided links to the sources for all of them. I literally answered the question you asked and proved that such peer reviewed data exists. But rather than concede it exists, you jump right into your script.
Here’s the thing though. In a court of law, peer reviewed, published data like this would be considered prima facie evidence. You can’t allow that because you know you have no answers for any of it. Here’s a clue for you...your personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
So, your only options to accept the data, refute the data, or ignore the data...and everyone reading this knows which you’ll do. Rejecting it because you don’t believe is on you but don’t put the burden on me to justify your Argument From Incredulity because it’s not going to happen.
On a side note: Let me be clear on one thing. I will never, and nobody should ever have to, reanalyze, reperform, rehash, or otherwise justify peer reviewed, properly published, and accepted research. It stands on its own merit. That is literally the whole point of the peer review process. Once presented the burden is on you; not me and all your handwaving word salad isn’t going to change that.
Accept, refute, ignore...those are your only options.
Mike
Show Posts
