I see this tiresome shite is being peddled yet again …
Bollocks. There exists no observation that supports the assertion that a cartoon magic man exists. This is a fantasy living rent free in the television in your head.
Except that no one who paid attention in class has ever espoused this strawman caricature you keep pedding. Instead, what actually happens, is that new entities and interactions are postulated to underpin the observations in question, and then effort is expended to determine experimentally if those new entities and interactions actually exist, and behave in the described manner.
Indeed, several entities and interactions postulated by scientists in the past, were rejected precisely because the relevant experimental tests failed. Phlogiston and the luminiferous aether being two classic examples, which were abandoned once the experimental tests told us that an alternative needed to be sought. Indeed, in the case of the former, not only did Antoine Laurent Lavoisier have an alternative in mind, in the form of the element Oyxgen, but he had grounds to be suspicious of the phlogiston concept even before the discovery of Oxygen, because he reasoned from basic chemistry that phlogiston would be required to possess negative mass, and would therefore be repelled by gravity instead of attracted.
For someone who claims to “understand theoretical physics”, and has engaged in tiresome bleating about my supposed “deficiencies” in this matter, your failure to understand even the elementary concepts at work here lead to much deep suspicion about your claims.
Bollocks.
What we can infer instead, is that we need to look for a set of well-defined entities and interactions that are amenable to experimental test and verification. “Magic Man did it” fails on this basis.
You are in NO position to question the honesty of others here.
More bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is substance writ large. It’s the entire basis of proper discourse.
The only inanity on display here, is your ex recto apologetic fabrications. Along with your duplicitous twisting of the actual statements of others, because you need strrawmen to knock down.
Complete and utter poppycock.
We can reject a belief in X, when X is undefined, precisely because the person asserting X doesn’t know what he’s talking about if he can’t define it!
On the contrary, treating X as true in such circumstances is the REAL vacuity.
Do you need the baby steps here?
Bare faced lie. But you’ve peddled a lot of those.
Oh wait, I seem to recall presenting an exposition on this very topic in the past. Oh look, this is a topic I’ve devoted much attention to in the past here, sample posts covering this (and the business of any “alternative methodology” anyone wishes to bring to the table) being this one, this one, this one which, wait for it, I posted in direct response to one of your posts (such a short memory you have), and this one that covered the topic briefly.
Indeed, in that post of mine answering one of yours, after explicitly stating that we have two methodologies for sorting assertions into true and false propositions, I then explained in detail to you, what steps you need to complete successfully, in order to introduce any third, alternative methodology, viz:
Of course, I’m used to seeing indolence of this sort from mythology fanboys.
Here’s a clue for you … some of us not only have functioning neurons and functioning reasoning, but long memories.