Mach Effect progress

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:39 pm

GIThruster wrote:Mach Effects are not attributed to Mach.

chrismb wrote: the originating principles of which are attributed to Mach

Contextomy fallacy.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:30 pm

No chris. It's quite obvious you did not answer the question as you have no idea what a Mach Effect is.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:21 pm

GIThruster wrote:It's quite obvious you did not answer the question as you have no idea what a Mach Effect is.

Did GIT mean to say "It's quite obvious you have no idea what a Mach Effect is because you did not answer the question."?

Otherwise this is petitio principii - the 'begging the question' fallacy - GIT has inferred the chrismb post cannot have answer because he claims the presumed writer of the post does not know what a Mach effect is. If he did not know then he could not answer, so GIT would have assumed the conclusion within the claim.

Whether the statement is true or not is undetermined, because it requires the latter claim to prove the former conclusion, and the latter claim may or may not be true. However, the sentence overall is a fallacy, irrespective of its correctness or otherwise.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:56 pm

chrismb wrote:
GIThruster wrote:

Could you two please either give it a rest or take it into Thunderdome?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:01 am

Why? All Chris is doing is reasoning. And simultaneously giving arguably the clearest, sharpest devils advocate walkthrough for everyone not scientifically on par. What is the duplicity in making the topical content of GIT's (the supposed expert at hand on the topic, considering P.March's mostly absent) posts less wrong?

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:02 am

Betruger wrote:Why? All Chris is doing is reasoning. And simultaneously giving arguably the clearest, sharpest devils advocate walkthrough for everyone not scientifically on par. What is the duplicity in making the topical content of GIT's (the supposed expert at hand on the topic, considering P.March's mostly absent) posts less wrong?

Some get their kicks from banter, some don't. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but it would be nice to have a space where actual information could be posted on the topic without it disappearing in a fuery of posts between the two over the definition of is...

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:03 am

Betruger wrote:All Chris is doing is reasoning.

No, he's not. Look at his latest post, for example, where he ignores the obvious interpretation of slightly clunky grammar in favour of a rather pointless attempt to accuse GIThruster of a logical fallacy. He is not innocent in this.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:27 am

ScottL wrote:
Betruger wrote:Why? All Chris is doing is reasoning. And simultaneously giving arguably the clearest, sharpest devils advocate walkthrough for everyone not scientifically on par. What is the duplicity in making the topical content of GIT's (the supposed expert at hand on the topic, considering P.March's mostly absent) posts less wrong?
Some get their kicks from banter, some don't. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but it would be nice to have a space where actual information could be posted on the topic without it disappearing in a fuery of posts between the two over the definition of is...

Banter is one thing - consistent flame wars another.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:39 am

ScottL wrote: it would be nice to have a space where actual information could be posted on the topic

ScottL's comment is quite reasonable.

To best accomplish this, posts that are not 'information' but are spurious comments, due to fallacy or reification, are currently being critiqued in chrismb posts. In the long run, by dissuading the posting of material that is not 'information', this will help ensure 'information' can be posted more freely without interference by non-information.

No further posts will appear under chrismb, excepting for corrections to fallacies and reifications (viz. speculations that lack suitable pre-conditional caveats). Therefore, if a poster does not wish a chrismb repost then they can avoid this by not posting fallacies and reifications.

Of course, if people wish to persist in posting fallacies and reifications then the logical benefits and deficits of that position can be discussed, and those that wish to continue posting this 'non-information' material can then be given an opportunity to say why they think it is OK to continue to do so.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:44 am

93143 wrote: No, he's not. Look at his latest post, for example, where he ignores the obvious interpretation of slightly clunky grammar in favour of a rather pointless attempt to accuse GIThruster of a logical fallacy. He is not innocent in this.

What interpretation can be put on GIT last post, then? Either it is the fallacy above, or if it is the alternative construction given in the chrismb post then it is equally invalid because the chrismb post did answer the question. Whether it was a right or wrong answer, the claim that the question was not answered is not correct.

Was GIT claiming that the chrismb post did not answer the question (which is false), OR was he claiming that the poster under chrismb does not understand Mach effect (for which no substantiation was given, except the false claim that the chrismb post did not answer the question).

If if is GIT's claim that the chrismb post did not answer the question correctly, and thus a limitation of understanding is thereby demonstrated, it is for GIT to say that AND to show in what way it was in error.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:21 am

Chris would it be possible for you not to use the third person? It makes you look silly in my opinion.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:18 pm

paperburn1 wrote:Chris would it be possible for you not to use the third person? It makes you look silly in my opinion.

It would be possible for posts not to use the third person.

Using the third person dissociates statements made from a personality.

It is pointless to attack the character of a person in respect of a third party statement made about objective facts. This does not stop some statements by others being erroneously directed at particular people in response, but it sets it in sharper context that it is the statement under discussion, not a person who may or may not have made such a statement.

An attack on a person as a means to critique a third party statement containing only facts, or alleged facts, or objective propositions, is always and immediately an ad hominem fallacy.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:04 pm

chrismb wrote:
paperburn1 wrote:Chris would it be possible for you not to use the third person? It makes you look silly in my opinion.
It would be possible for posts not to use the third person.

Using the third person dissociates statements made from a personality.

It is pointless to attack the character of a person in respect of a third party statement made about objective facts. This does not stop some statements by others being erroneously directed at particular people in response, but it sets it in sharper context that it is the statement under discussion, not a person who may or may not have made such a statement.

An attack on a person as a means to critique a third party statement containing only facts, or alleged facts, or objective propositions, is always and immediately an ad hominem fallacy.

So that would be "No" ok ,just asking.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:22 pm

93143 wrote:
Betruger wrote:All Chris is doing is reasoning.
No, he's not. Look at his latest post, for example, where he ignores the obvious interpretation of slightly clunky grammar in favour of

Chris' posts lead to logical resolution. GIT to logical resolution only after you admit you rubbed him the wrong way and admit you have some mental illness and do not conform to his moral ideals. Chris gets nasty real quick, but he's concise and accurate. Like Dr Prins, you can just ignore his frustrations and keep arguing whereas GIT puts his emotional issues ahead of everything else.

a rather pointless attempt to accuse GIThruster of a logical fallacy. He is not innocent in this.

It's not pointless. GIT is way beyond clunky grammar. If someone had the patience, they could stack his unprovoked insults and/or ad hominems and other repeated fallacies as high as Ladajo's Rossi-isms.

The worst of it is that pointing this out to him in the most concise way doesn't get him to admit error but accuse you of basically exactly what he does.

GIThruster wrote:[Betruger] is an emotionally disturbed asshole, who dominates the forum like a tyrant, constantly belittling others without cause and pretending it is only his opinions that matter.

GIThruster wrote:I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and as I said, I'm pro-choice. But the fact you are shoveling your childish opinion the way you are while telling others they can't makes you out to be a monumental hypocrite--unless of course you have a uterus. I'd taken "Stubby" as that you have a tiny penis instead.

Chris is nasty but his rhetoric is as good as always on topic. Again why did GIT get banned from NSF? 93143 you know that wasn't just some freak occurence. Or take the piss test/"MJ bum" episode(s) with MSimon. The list goes on.

You cannot reason GIT. So as it stands he's by principle incompatible with this forum. That's what Chris demonstrates above. That's why NSF banned him.

Why bother with this? The signal noise ratio in one of the most interesting topics on this, NSF, or any forum I know - Woodward & co's progress.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:36 pm

You could at least provide the context where you earned those accolades, Betruger. It was after pages of harassment that you admitted were because you hate Christians, that I finally blasted you the way I did.

Seriously, I have already owned up to the NSF issue several times and you trot it out each time you want to attack me personally. This is a true ad hominem attack. I will say it yet again for those who don't know--I was banned at NSF because I cussed out Jim, and I was met by more than a dozen notes letting me know Jim richly deserved much more than he got. I don't especially regret the issue since NSF has a host of unusual problems including the way it panders to people like Jim and allows them vastly more freedom to offend because of his status in the forum.

But none of that is really the issue. The issue is that chris keeps pressing for answers he's already been given and when I refuse to engage him further on whatever is his pet grievance, he decides to press the issue on personal grounds.

Just reminding-- I have indeed answered chris' questions--all of them. The thermodynamics/entropy issue is addressed by the position that M-E usage accelerates the expansion of the universe. Been there. Done that more than once. If you'll recall, I have explained on several occasions now, that Jim's graduate student Tom Mayhood originally addressed this issue back about 15 years ago when he coined the phrase "tomorrow's momentum today" which still adorns the door of Jim's lab. chris can easily look this up by reading back in this folder. chis himself argued with me over this point and said he thought to increase entropy one would need to lessen the expansion of the universe, because chris does not understand the arrow of time. This has all be dealt with before, and chris knows this.

There is nothing rational about chris' behavior or arguments. There are rather, so many things wrong with his positions as it would take weeks to address a single day of his posts. "Science is by definition what is known"? That's as crazy, stupid and wrong as any statement can be. How is that "rational"? Rather, the fact is chris is a very sick person who knows he needs to be in therapy and instead, is getting his emotional needs met by arguing with anyone he can find in this forum, and I have no intention of so spending my time.