Vagueness in FE

You don't mean that piezoelectric thing surely? What a laugh! As I replied there's no point in presenting evidence to sceptimatic.

Then don't get into a debate with him where evidence is kinda the whole point. Why is this so hard for you?!

if all you want to do is objectthat it's unsupported, go right ahead and do that. That's sufficient to reject something utterly. Why aren't you satisfied with that? Why do you need uninformed refutations of straw men to back it up?

If you have an actual objection to the contents of what I post beyond "How dare you call me out!" I'm still waiting.

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 06:28:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 05:08:18 PM

If I have to explain the fundamentals of what logic is to someone, how is a debate even possible? And if that's not logical, then tell me the bloody problem already rather than going off on your usual irrelevant tangents.

Reminder:

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 03:19:33 PM

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

Just like is demonstrated in this thread however you are apparently fundamentally incapable of responding to a straight question.

Seriously. With how often you kick up a fuss that I dare call out REers, why do you refuse to justify why?

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 02:57:11 AM

If you have an actual objection to the contents of what I post beyond "How dare you call me out!" I'm still waiting.

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 06:28:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 05:08:18 PM

If I have to explain the fundamentals of what logic is to someone, how is a debate even possible? And if that's not logical, then tell me the bloody problem already rather than going off on your usual irrelevant tangents.

Reminder:

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 03:19:33 PM

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

Just like is demonstrated in this thread however you are apparently fundamentally incapable of responding to a straight question.

Seriously. With how often you kick up a fuss that I dare call out REers, why do you refuse to justify why?

You do love hearing yourself talk, talk, talk and you never stop!

No either shut up or help out with the difficult tecnical questions.

You do love hearing yourself talk, talk, talk and you never stop!

No either shut up or help out with the difficult tecnical questions.

Only because you're still refusing to answer.

There's no point making long detailed posts in response to someone that has a dozen other people yapping on at them. It'd go ignored no matter what because it's just a plain energy drain to even look at some of the rants. Plus, you know, still pointless because you don't need to refute something to reject it. I'm perfectly happy leaving a few models in the realm of 'hypothetically possible with sufficient assumptions and changes' that's still a far cry from even 'competing theory' let alone 'true.' Why do you need everything to be refuted? That kind of attitude is what leads to "Well why take the risk with vaccines? There's no solid proof they don't [whatever]"
Why won't you just focus on the value of not believing in things because they lack evidence, rather than dragging it to arguments you don't want to make?

Now, why won't you answer a straight question?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2019, 04:18:19 AM

You do love hearing yourself talk, talk, talk and you never stop!

No either shut up or help out with the difficult technical questions.

Only because you're still refusing to answer.

Why should I bother? Bug out!

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 04:26:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2019, 04:18:19 AM

You do love hearing yourself talk, talk, talk and you never stop!

No either shut up or help out with the difficult technical questions.

Only because you're still refusing to answer.

Why should I bother? Bug out!

You're the one that chooses to come here. Such an insightful response to an argument being called out. You must be so proud of how you combat the evils of anti-science.

You must be so proud of how you combat the evils of anti-science.

No, I'm just sick to death of you telling everyone else what to do but never doing better yourself. To me, you are nothing but a blatant hypocrite.

You are the one pretending to know what everyone else thinks but can rarely make a post that isn't attacking someone else!

rarely make a post that isn't attacking someone else!

Attacking someone's argument is not attacking them.
Calling someone out for refusing to address a point after giving them every damn chance is just a statement of fact.

Jesus christ, are you seriously objecting to someone criticising arguments on a debate site?!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2019, 04:52:44 AM

rarely make a post that isn't attacking someone else!

Attacking someone's argument is not attacking them.
Calling someone out for refusing to address a point after giving them every damn chance is just a statement of fact.

Jesus christ, are you seriously objecting to someone criticising arguments on a debate site?!

But it's all you seem to do! That is the point that you simply cannot understand.
I know that us poor humans cannot hope to reach your high standards be we do try to reply to posts and some quite difficult one but all you ever do is bitch about our efforts.

If you are really so wonderful please demonstrate this by posting good arguments. Of course, you can't be bothered and it makes you feel so good to complain about others all the time!

But it's all you seem to do! That is the point that you simply cannot understand.

Shock horror. All I do in debates is point out bad arguments. That's... what's it called... oh yes, debate!

If you are really so wonderful please demonstrate this by posting good arguments. Of course, you can't be bothered and it makes you feel so good to complain about others all the time!

A) Have done. Got derailed because I had to defend the concept of evidence to REers. Gave up because no one cared.
B) No bloody point anyway because no one has any time to respond when you keep desperately dragging any thread to your pointless assertions as though you are offering anything that even can be discussed.
C) You have rambled for fucking ever rather than answer a straight question, how the hell is anyone meant to have time to develop and post arguments when you insist on wasting their time?
D) What would it achieve? I'm one person. Trying to get others to actually make good arguments affects the quality of the site. If I just do it, what's achieved?
E) I have answered that bloody question so many times when you keep spamming it and guess what, yet again you always fail to acknowledge the fact that you know exactly why, because all you are capable of is spamming the forum, and then ignoring the answers you are given time and time again. What is the point of your posts when you don't even acknowledge the responses?

How about, instead of continually spamming that, you take the radical step and remember this answer, and you shut up?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2019, 03:37:06 AM

You don't mean that piezoelectric thing surely? What a laugh! As I replied there's no point in presenting evidence to sceptimatic.

Then don't get into a debate with him where evidence is kinda the whole point. Why is this so hard for you?!

if all you want to do is objectthat it's unsupported, go right ahead and do that. That's sufficient to reject something utterly. Why aren't you satisfied with that?

Hi Jane,

I’m new here so I am probably missing a lot of background,but to me it seems most of the ‘FE’ arguments here are not evidentiary in nature, they are built using ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’. So isnt it completely unsurprising that these are the types of arguments made back? Isn’t exploring the consistency, depth, and explanatory power of a proposed model worth something even in the absence of any evidence?

I get your points here, and no one likes bad logic, but I’m not sure what you want to change.  I think everyone here is trying to make rational, thought out responses to the best of their ability.  I see a lot of clever people here, simply talking about things they enjoy discussing, and hope that no one here shuts up or goes away.

I’m new here so I am probably missing a lot of background,but to me it seems most of the ‘FE’ arguments here are not evidentiary in nature, they are built using ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’. So isnt it completely unsurprising that these are the types of arguments made back? Isn’t exploring the consistency, depth, and explanatory power of a proposed model worth something even in the absence of any evidence?

I get your points here, and no one likes bad logic, but I’m not sure what you want to change.  I think everyone here is trying to make rational, thought out responses to the best of their ability.  I see a lot of clever people here, simply talking about things they enjoy discussing, and hope that no one here shuts up or goes away.

Absolutely, those should be the responses, based on logic and common sense. The problem is that's not what happens. The responses don't apply to any FE model, because the person making them rarely bothered to learn what it was the model contains and what it would predict. Consistency, depth and explanatory power can only be explored with some idea of what needs to be consistent, what the depth is, what it explains...
Read from the perspective of a FEer, see the discussion the way they would. They don't necessarily accept a lot of the principles you do, so when those principles just get blithely asserted it comes across as being closed-minded or brainwashed. In that case the principle needs to be justified, but more often than not the justification is an experiment or observation that the FEer has a separate explanation for. That's where evidence is required, otherwise you're just trading hypothetical situations with no reason to prefer one over the other.

There are two ways you can debate. One is to just ask for evidence; the other is to try and disprove a statement. In the former, the onus is on them to give evidence. In the latter, it's on you. Either way someone has to give evidence, someone needs to give some indication that one point of view is better than the other. Otherwise debate is legitimately impossible.
More often than not, instead you get people darting between the two, claiming to be putting together a disproof but acting as though they're just asking for evidence. Which is fine, that's a valid reason to reject a model, but it also renders any discussion of principles a waste of time. What it really tends to be is someone making a bad argument, realising they can't defend it, and hastily backing down; whether that's intentional or not, that's how it comes across.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2019, 04:30:21 AM

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 04:26:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2019, 04:18:19 AM

You do love hearing yourself talk, talk, talk and you never stop!

No either shut up or help out with the difficult technical questions.

Only because you're still refusing to answer.

Why should I bother? Bug out!

You're the one that chooses to come here. Such an insightful response to an argument being called out. You must be so proud of how you combat the evils of anti-science.

And likewise wih the whitrknighing - its jane, saviour of the bullied FE'ers.
Who doesnt answer the core of the question.
But inevitablly falls on "it is because it is" and fights with jackb and rab about semantics and lying or ignoring the OP.

And likewise wih the whitrknighing - its jane, saviour of the bullied FE'ers.
Who doesnt answer the core of the question.
But inevitablly falls on "it is because it is" and fights with jackb and rab about semantics and lying or ignoring the OP.

Only reason it ends with rab and jackb is that they're incapable of letting a bad argument go. More likely to get jackblack making a completely different argument and insisting it's the same one, and not listening when I try to end the damn conversation.

Ask for evidence, go right ahead, sufficient reason to reject FET, just don't make claims about the contents and predictions of models you know nothing about. No white-knighting here, just common bloody sense. It is completely ridiculous that I have needed to defend that concept for this long.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 11, 2019, 10:21:39 AM

And likewise wih the whitrknighing - its jane, saviour of the bullied FE'ers.
Who doesnt answer the core of the question.
But inevitablly falls on "it is because it is" and fights with jackb and rab about semantics and lying or ignoring the OP.

Only reason it ends with rab and jackb is that they're incapable of letting a bad argument go. More likely to get jackblack making a completely different argument and insisting it's the same one, and not listening when I try to end the damn conversation.

Ask for evidence, go right ahead, sufficient reason to reject FET, just don't make claims about the contents and predictions of models you know nothing about. No white-knighting here, just common bloody sense. It is completely ridiculous that I have needed to defend that concept for this long.

Where are the models that represent the earth we know today, links please.  The first thing is to check is that measured distances are correct.

Ask for evidence, go right ahead, sufficient reason to reject FET, just don't make claims about the contents and predictions of models you know nothing about. No white-knighting here, just common bloody sense. It is completely ridiculous that I have needed to defend that concept for this long.

Where are the models that represent the earth we know today, links please.  The first thing is to check is that measured distances are correct.
[/quote]
If you are not even going to read a word of what I said, why do you feel the need to interject with a pointless question?

Quote from: sobchak on February 11, 2019, 07:14:41 AM

I’m new here so I am probably missing a lot of background,but to me it seems most of the ‘FE’ arguments here are not evidentiary in nature, they are built using ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’. So isnt it completely unsurprising that these are the types of arguments made back? Isn’t exploring the consistency, depth, and explanatory power of a proposed model worth something even in the absence of any evidence?

I get your points here, and no one likes bad logic, but I’m not sure what you want to change.  I think everyone here is trying to make rational, thought out responses to the best of their ability.  I see a lot of clever people here, simply talking about things they enjoy discussing, and hope that no one here shuts up or goes away.

Absolutely, those should be the responses, based on logic and common sense. The problem is that's not what happens. The responses don't apply to any FE model, because the person making them rarely bothered to learn what it was the model contains and what it would predict. Consistency, depth and explanatory power can only be explored with some idea of what needs to be consistent, what the depth is, what it explains...
Read from the perspective of a FEer, see the discussion the way they would. They don't necessarily accept a lot of the principles you do, so when those principles just get blithely asserted it comes across as being closed-minded or brainwashed. In that case the principle needs to be justified, but more often than not the justification is an experiment or observation that the FEer has a separate explanation for. That's where evidence is required, otherwise you're just trading hypothetical situations with no reason to prefer one over the other.

There are two ways you can debate. One is to just ask for evidence; the other is to try and disprove a statement. In the former, the onus is on them to give evidence. In the latter, it's on you. Either way someone has to give evidence, someone needs to give some indication that one point of view is better than the other. Otherwise debate is legitimately impossible.
More often than not, instead you get people darting between the two, claiming to be putting together a disproof but acting as though they're just asking for evidence. Which is fine, that's a valid reason to reject a model, but it also renders any discussion of principles a waste of time. What it really tends to be is someone making a bad argument, realising they can't defend it, and hastily backing down; whether that's intentional or not, that's how it comes across.

I understand that’s how it comes across to you, and that’s fine, you are entitled to your perspective and opinions. I would just suggest that others have different and equally justifiable perceptions and opinions, and there doesn’t have to be a single (or even two) appropriate way to discuss and debate these ideas.

And just a question - Is it possible you don’t see the reason and thread of logic in the responses you are railing against in the same way you think others don’t see the threads that hold together the ‘FE’ concepts?  I can see what most people here are saying so I would be surprised if you can’t.

I understand that’s how it comes across to you, and that’s fine, you are entitled to your perspective and opinions. I would just suggest that others have different and equally justifiable perceptions and opinions, and there doesn’t have to be a single (or even two) appropriate way to discuss and debate these ideas.

And just a question - Is it possible you don’t see the reason and thread of logic in the responses you are railing against in the same way you think others don’t see the threads that hold together the ‘FE’ concepts?  I can see what most people here are saying so I would be surprised if you can’t.

Logic isn't a matter of opinion. I can see what they're saying just fine. That's the problem.
Sure, maybe I make a mistake in interpretation, that's what discussion is for, to correct those mistakes. It's also when problems tend to out; if someone repeatedly refuses to answer a key question, that's a good indication that they're lacking something. If someone repeats themselves without acknowledging what you said, that's a good indication something needs to change. If someone repeats exactly what you said back at you, that's a sign to point that out, and see if they're just itching for a fight rather than a discussion.

There are plenty of ways to have a discussion, but logic is pretty limited in how it works. Going from a "How does this work?" argument to a "But give me the proof!" is just laziness. It's not interesting for anyone, it's not fun, and that alone should be the end of it except some of those users are apparently just devoid of empathy so it takes pointing out the poor logic to even hope to have an impact.
You can ask after evidence without trying to poke holes in a model, and poking holes in a model is refuted by possibility, not certainty.

Quote from: sobchak on February 11, 2019, 11:11:56 AM

I understand that’s how it comes across to you, and that’s fine, you are entitled to your perspective and opinions. I would just suggest that others have different and equally justifiable perceptions and opinions, and there doesn’t have to be a single (or even two) appropriate way to discuss and debate these ideas.

And just a question - Is it possible you don’t see the reason and thread of logic in the responses you are railing against in the same way you think others don’t see the threads that hold together the ‘FE’ concepts?  I can see what most people here are saying so I would be surprised if you can’t.

Logic isn't a matter of opinion. I can see what they're saying just fine. That's the problem.
Sure, maybe I make a mistake in interpretation, that's what discussion is for, to correct those mistakes. It's also when problems tend to out; if someone repeatedly refuses to answer a key question, that's a good indication that they're lacking something. If someone repeats themselves without acknowledging what you said, that's a good indication something needs to change. If someone repeats exactly what you said back at you, that's a sign to point that out, and see if they're just itching for a fight rather than a discussion.

There are plenty of ways to have a discussion, but logic is pretty limited in how it works. Going from a "How does this work?" argument to a "But give me the proof!" is just laziness. It's not interesting for anyone, it's not fun, and that alone should be the end of it except some of those users are apparently just devoid of empathy so it takes pointing out the poor logic to even hope to have an impact.
You can ask after evidence without trying to poke holes in a model, and poking holes in a model is refuted by possibility, not certainty.

2notes.
1.
Doesnt scpeti fall into your first point?

2.
Possibility sure.
Theres always a possibility if the stars align and magic is available.
But if it isnt, we can compare the theory with relevant info and measurablr observable data to figure out wehter the hypothesis has merit or not.

2notes.
1.
Doesnt scpeti fall into your first point?

I've talked to him, how do you think I wrote up denpressure? He doesn't unless you're just ignoring him. Sometimes it takes a little thought to piece together how what he said applies, but that's a sign you need to use some patience, not to just ignore absolutely everything.

2.
Possibility sure.
Theres always a possibility if the stars align and magic is available.
But if it isnt, we can compare the theory with relevant info and measurablr observable data to figure out wehter the hypothesis has merit or not.

Exactly. So go do that rather than acting like you need to find a disproof Seriously, did you miss the truly dizzying number of times I've already said that?!

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 11, 2019, 11:49:16 AM

2notes.
1.
Doesnt scpeti fall into your first point?

I've talked to him, how do you think I wrote up denpressure? He doesn't unless you're just ignoring him. Sometimes it takes a little thought to piece together how what he said applies, but that's a sign you need to use some patience, not to just ignore absolutely everything.

Quote

2.
Possibility sure.
Theres always a possibility if the stars align and magic is available.
But if it isnt, we can compare the theory with relevant info and measurablr observable data to figure out wehter the hypothesis has merit or not.

Exactly. So go do that rather than acting like you need to find a disproof Seriously, did you miss the truly dizzying number of times I've already said that?!

Mine started out politely enoguh but degraded when he insisted on insulting language and dodging direct questions.
I chalked him up as a troll and i since then outright insult and troll him back.
He has no desire to debate or defend his position.
He just looking for people to suck up to his theory.
Look at his initial attitude in my dealings with him.
Look at sobchaks conversation with scepti.
Look at how quick he turned face after sob repeatedly asked for clairty.
Sob was waaaay more polite than i or jackb.

Sob was waaaay more polite than i or jackb.

Polite doesn't equaly putting in effort. You act like I didn't used to be the exact same. I just want back later just to see if I could piece it together, and I genuinely tried to make sense of it rather than just work out enough that I could argue against it. Those are two separate steps.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 10, 2019, 02:17:28 PM

I’m not refining anything, but I’ll tell you what I am doing, and that’s being perplexed and mystified and I’ll tell you why.

You want to use the language and methods of science to discuss something that is totally unscientific in nature and totally at odds with the world of science. Nothing in the FE world can be considered scientific especially DET, and that is a scientific fact.

However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?

You defend unscientific ideas like DET which is opposed to science in every single respect, yet you want some kind of weird scientific hybrid to judge and quantify it. Because there is nothing remotely scientific about DET, in that it contradicts much of what science has proven there is little need to disassemble such a ridiculous idea as DET.

Bad arguments!...I think you know more about them than anyone else around as you constantly employ them, while claiming other people are using them

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, do so.

If you want to make claims about a model to disprove it, a completely different argument, then you need to apply the scientific method in order to do so; you cannot make claims about something if you don't understand it.

This is not hard. You want to claim to have disproven something, but don't want to say anything beyond "Lacks evidence." Frankly, you're an idiot. Rejecting something because it lacks evidence is perfectly valid, and it's evidently something you're happy to do, so why the hell aren't you doing it?!
You do not need to have refuted something in order to reject it. You evidently don't actually want to put in the work necessary for a disproof, so stop swaggering about and pretending you have. Ask for the evidence, and stop acting like you're supporting any argument beyond that.

Also science hasn't proven anything. That's not how it works. If we acted like you we'd still think the Sun revolved around the Earth because, hey, science has proven that, why move on? Science works because of the evidence supporting it. You should be happy to provide that evidence if you actually gave a damn. It's just a google away, it's not hard.
It's like talking to a brick wall. You didn't even answer a straight bloody question.

Bad bad arguments.

We are taking here about denpressure and how it contradicts everything that science has to say about the behaviour of gasses under any circumstance you wish to mention.

Denpressure it totally unscientific.....full stop. Nothing he claims has been derived in a scientific manner, how could he as its 100% madeup pseudoscience. To try and claim otherwise is a mockery of science, and just makes you look silly trying to justify it.

BTW...do you believe that vacuums exist?  Because science does.
I bet you avoid that particular question.

Bad bad arguments.

We are taking here about denpressure and how it contradicts everything that science has to say about the behaviour of gasses under any circumstance you wish to mention.

Denpressure it totally unscientific.....full stop. Nothing he claims has been derived in a scientific manner, how could he as its 100% madeup pseudoscience. To try and claim otherwise is a mockery of science, and just makes you look silly trying to justify it.

I'm not claiming otherwise. Just. Jesus Christ do you live in your own little world or something?! You are claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Read.

End of discussion.

Quote from: sobchak on February 11, 2019, 11:11:56 AM

I understand that’s how it comes across to you, and that’s fine, you are entitled to your perspective and opinions. I would just suggest that others have different and equally justifiable perceptions and opinions, and there doesn’t have to be a single (or even two) appropriate way to discuss and debate these ideas.

And just a question - Is it possible you don’t see the reason and thread of logic in the responses you are railing against in the same way you think others don’t see the threads that hold together the ‘FE’ concepts?  I can see what most people here are saying so I would be surprised if you can’t.

Logic isn't a matter of opinion.

Sure, but whether it applies to a given situation surely is, no?

There are plenty of ways to have a discussion, but logic is pretty limited in how it works. Going from a "How does this work?" argument to a "But give me the proof!" is just laziness. It's not interesting for anyone, it's not fun, and that alone should be the end of it except some of those users are apparently just devoid of empathy so it takes pointing out the poor logic to even hope to have an impact.

Do you think you are having an impact? 

Sure, but whether it applies to a given situation surely is, no?

Always applies. That's what logic is.
Making a claim about someone else's statement, and then justifying that by asking them to provide evidence for example. There's no logical inference there, it just doesn't work. Objective fact.

Analysis of the quality of an argument is true independent of the reasons and conclusions of an argument. Whether those reasons hold is a whole other debate, and one that can theoretically be interesting when it doesn't get derailed.

Do you think you are having an impact?

Not on REers, beyond hopefully annoying the trolls into leaving. Hopefully convincing a few FEers we aren't all idiots though.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 11, 2019, 12:43:46 PM

Sob was waaaay more polite than i or jackb.

Polite doesn't equaly putting in effort. You act like I didn't used to be the exact same. I just want back later just to see if I could piece it together, and I genuinely tried to make sense of it rather than just work out enough that I could argue against it. Those are two separate steps.

I did try to put it together, and I think I have a good grasp on some of the basics.  I think I reached the limit though on what he had explanations and coherence for, so I just left it alone in the state he was able to describe it. 

I do still like the world he has thought up, but I’m not sure it has much more coherence than what I have already gleaned.

Quote from: sobchak on February 11, 2019, 03:48:02 PM

Sure, but whether it applies to a given situation surely is, no?

Always applies. That's what logic is
Making a claim about someone else's statement, and then justifying that by asking them to provide evidence for example. There's no logical inference there, it just doesn't work. Objective fact.

Not sure I agree here Jane. What if the claim made was a logical conclusion of the statement?   Why doesn’t it work to ask for examples of where logic leads?  Isn’t that a great test of a statement, if the logical conclusions derived from it can be demonstrated?   

Analysis of the quality of an argument is true independent of the reasons and conclusions of an argument.

Only if done correctly obviously.   

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 03:53:04 PM

Making a claim about someone else's statement, and then justifying that by asking them to provide evidence for example. There's no logical inference there, it just doesn't work. Objective fact.

Not sure I agree here Jane. What if the claim made was a logical conclusion of the statement? 

Then you don't need evidence for their statement.

Quote from: sobchak on February 11, 2019, 04:17:36 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 03:53:04 PM

Making a claim about someone else's statement, and then justifying that by asking them to provide evidence for example. There's no logical inference there, it just doesn't work. Objective fact.

Not sure I agree here Jane. What if the claim made was a logical conclusion of the statement? 

Then you don't need evidence for their statement.

Sometimes, sometimes not. 

Anyway, We don’t need to bicker. You are welcome to your opinions of what is objective fact, it’s a theme that fits well with this forum.

Take care Jane, I would say good luck in your attempt to scold away the posters you don’t like, but I think they add to the duscussion, so I hope they stay despite your opinions of them. 

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 11, 2019, 01:59:19 PM

Bad bad arguments.

We are taking here about denpressure and how it contradicts everything that science has to say about the behaviour of gasses under any circumstance you wish to mention.

Denpressure it totally unscientific.....full stop. Nothing he claims has been derived in a scientific manner, how could he as its 100% madeup pseudoscience. To try and claim otherwise is a mockery of science, and just makes you look silly trying to justify it.

I'm not claiming otherwise. Just. Jesus Christ do you live in your own little world or something?! You are claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Read.

End of discussion.

So what have you been saying?  I’m mystified!