o I did that in this post, but then I was told by dustin that I’ve written something too glaringly obvious yet clearly incorrect and controversial.
No, I’m not qualified to gauge whether you are clearly incorrect. I am qualified to comment on whether you’re making a convincing argument. Your arguments are not convincing largely because you do not really engage with people who question you.
The Ghost of Joseph Weber, the response was a series of gish gallops by gjm in which he argued that organizing random data according to a criteria called ‘weirdness’ was scientific. (It is not.)
And this is the problem. You could, for example, have a good and through discussion with gjm about this specific point. But you won’t, and I find it disappointing.
Look, here’s the deal for me:
Bringing up that human bias could be the cause of a scientific result is not sufficient nor necessary to negate that result...the bias is beside the point of whether they are right or not. You have to engage the results.
Most people, no matter how smart, do not have the background, time, or energy to engage on specific points of the technical subjects you have raised in your series of posts. (Of note, this is why you would do better to focus on single, specific technical points rather than shotgunning a non-physics-expert audience with every single technical thing you think is wrong with advanced physics experiments.) (This is also why, to most observers you are the one who started out with a gish gallop.)
These technical points are the only thing you have to hang your hat on.
gjm, to all appearances, seems to actually have the background to engage you on these points.
Instead of engaging on any point gjm raised, you basically just dismissed all of them out of hand.
Because of this, to an outsider of the field, you are now the one who looks like the one who has succumbed to unknown-to-us biases.
As far as any outsider can tell there are a lot of plausible explanations for your position, and only one of them has to do with you being right...and you lowered my priors in the “this person is right about all of this physics stuff” explanation for your posts by rejecting engagement with the main person trying to engage you on a technical level.
gjm could be full of shit. I don’t know, but I do know that it doesn’t seem like he’s full of shit. I do know that a few of the factual things he brought up that I do have the background to check on...like him saying you were misquoting others seemed spot on. Add on to that your refusal to engage, and you’re obviously going to be in the position you’re in now.
You may very well be correct but you’re doing us all a disservice by arguing your points poorly.
No, I’m not qualified to gauge whether you are clearly incorrect. I am qualified to comment on whether you’re making a convincing argument. Your arguments are not convincing largely because you do not really engage with people who question you.
And this is the problem. You could, for example, have a good and through discussion with gjm about this specific point. But you won’t, and I find it disappointing.
Look, here’s the deal for me:
Bringing up that human bias could be the cause of a scientific result is not sufficient nor necessary to negate that result...the bias is beside the point of whether they are right or not. You have to engage the results.
Most people, no matter how smart, do not have the background, time, or energy to engage on specific points of the technical subjects you have raised in your series of posts. (Of note, this is why you would do better to focus on single, specific technical points rather than shotgunning a non-physics-expert audience with every single technical thing you think is wrong with advanced physics experiments.) (This is also why, to most observers you are the one who started out with a gish gallop.)
These technical points are the only thing you have to hang your hat on.
gjm, to all appearances, seems to actually have the background to engage you on these points.
Instead of engaging on any point gjm raised, you basically just dismissed all of them out of hand.
Because of this, to an outsider of the field, you are now the one who looks like the one who has succumbed to unknown-to-us biases.
As far as any outsider can tell there are a lot of plausible explanations for your position, and only one of them has to do with you being right...and you lowered my priors in the “this person is right about all of this physics stuff” explanation for your posts by rejecting engagement with the main person trying to engage you on a technical level.
gjm could be full of shit. I don’t know, but I do know that it doesn’t seem like he’s full of shit. I do know that a few of the factual things he brought up that I do have the background to check on...like him saying you were misquoting others seemed spot on. Add on to that your refusal to engage, and you’re obviously going to be in the position you’re in now.
You may very well be correct but you’re doing us all a disservice by arguing your points poorly.