Every part of my comment is in response to a corresponding part of what you wrote. So your accusation of Gish-galloping is exactly backwards. The reason why the Gish gallop works is that it’s generally much quicker to make a bogus claim than to refute it. You made a lot of bogus claims; I had to write a lot in order to refute them all. (Well, I’m sure I didn’t get them all.) … And then you accuse me of doing a Gish gallop? Really?
If you think my logic is wrong, then please show where it’s wrong. If your complaint is only that it’s convoluted—well, science and mathematics are complicated sometimes. I don’t actually think what I’m saying is particularly convoluted, but I will admit to preferring precise reasoning over vague slogans like “no adding uncorrelated phase errors”.
Of course I don’t claim that literally every thing you wrote was wrong. But I do think (and that is what I said) that in none of the cases where you (mis)quoted Bouman and complained was your objection actually correct.
If there were “one point on which all the others rest” then indeed I could have picked it out and concentrated on that. But there isn’t: you make a lot of complaints, and so far as I can see there isn’t one single one on which all else depends. (If I had to identify one single thing on which all your objections rest, it would be something that you haven’t actually said and indeed I’m only guessing: I think you don’t believe black holes exist and therefore when someone presents what claims to be evidence of black holes you “know” it must be wrong and therefore go looking for all the ways they could have erred. But of course my attempt at diagnosis could be wrong.)
As for the assorted mere insinuations (“extreme black-and-white thinking”, “lack of nuance”, “convoluted logic”, “weakness”, “redundancies and redirects”, “jargon-rich”, “smoke and mirrors”) -- well, other readers (if any there be) can make up their own minds about that. But for what it’s worth, none of that was a goal; I try to write as simply and clearly as correctness allows. I’m sure I don’t always achieve perfect success; who does?
Every part of my comment is in response to a corresponding part of what you wrote. So your accusation of Gish-galloping is exactly backwards. The reason why the Gish gallop works is that it’s generally much quicker to make a bogus claim than to refute it. You made a lot of bogus claims; I had to write a lot in order to refute them all. (Well, I’m sure I didn’t get them all.) … And then you accuse me of doing a Gish gallop? Really?
If you think my logic is wrong, then please show where it’s wrong. If your complaint is only that it’s convoluted—well, science and mathematics are complicated sometimes. I don’t actually think what I’m saying is particularly convoluted, but I will admit to preferring precise reasoning over vague slogans like “no adding uncorrelated phase errors”.
Of course I don’t claim that literally every thing you wrote was wrong. But I do think (and that is what I said) that in none of the cases where you (mis)quoted Bouman and complained was your objection actually correct.
If there were “one point on which all the others rest” then indeed I could have picked it out and concentrated on that. But there isn’t: you make a lot of complaints, and so far as I can see there isn’t one single one on which all else depends. (If I had to identify one single thing on which all your objections rest, it would be something that you haven’t actually said and indeed I’m only guessing: I think you don’t believe black holes exist and therefore when someone presents what claims to be evidence of black holes you “know” it must be wrong and therefore go looking for all the ways they could have erred. But of course my attempt at diagnosis could be wrong.)
As for the assorted mere insinuations (“extreme black-and-white thinking”, “lack of nuance”, “convoluted logic”, “weakness”, “redundancies and redirects”, “jargon-rich”, “smoke and mirrors”) -- well, other readers (if any there be) can make up their own minds about that. But for what it’s worth, none of that was a goal; I try to write as simply and clearly as correctness allows. I’m sure I don’t always achieve perfect success; who does?