Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy

[colubridae]

...leaving the original pseudo-scientific falsehood as the only bit that joe public remembers.

Like yours. Now listen up: I'm not mistermack. I'm John Duffield. I'm me, nobody else.

Relax john, it's only evidence...

People here love you...

and I think I'm about to get the chop anyway...

[Twiglet]

...leaving the original pseudo-scientific falsehood as the only bit that joe public remembers.

Like yours. Now listen up: I'm not mistermack. I'm John Duffield. I'm me, nobody else.

...Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics....

And twiglet, I'm no shill. By alleging that I am instead of rationally discussing the issue, you just demolished your own argument. It's patent. To see it plain as day, merely change refutations to assertions in your next sentence:

They make what they say are definitive assertions of the science. When these assertions are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.

Who does that describe? Why Twiglet, that's you.

Oh, I don't think I am alone in quoting Special Relativity without seeking to impose my own spin it. Hardly a position that requires much defense.

As for you being a shill, well, if you are I certainly wouldn't expect you to own up to it. The evidence of your behaviour speaks for itself.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

...leaving the original pseudo-scientific falsehood as the only bit that joe public remembers.

Like yours. Now listen up: I'm not mistermack. I'm John Duffield. I'm me, nobody else.

...Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics....

And twiglet, I'm no shill. By alleging that I am instead of rationally discussing the issue, you just demolished your own argument. It's patent. To see it plain as day, merely change refutations to assertions in your next sentence:

They make what they say are definitive assertions of the science. When these assertions are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.

Who does that describe? Why Twiglet, that's you.

Oh, I don't think I am alone in quoting Special Relativity without seeking to impose my own spin it. Hardly a position that requires much defense.

As for you being a shill, well, if you are I certainly wouldn't expect you to own up to it. The evidence of your behaviour speaks for itself.

The evidence of his IP address speaks otherwise. Please drop this line of attack, Col. You are hurting your own case more than his.

[Twiglet]

...leaving the original pseudo-scientific falsehood as the only bit that joe public remembers.

Like yours. Now listen up: I'm not mistermack. I'm John Duffield. I'm me, nobody else.

...Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics....

And twiglet, I'm no shill. By alleging that I am instead of rationally discussing the issue, you just demolished your own argument. It's patent. To see it plain as day, merely change refutations to assertions in your next sentence:

They make what they say are definitive assertions of the science. When these assertions are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.

Who does that describe? Why Twiglet, that's you.

Oh, I don't think I am alone in quoting Special Relativity without seeking to impose my own spin it. Hardly a position that requires much defense.

As for you being a shill, well, if you are I certainly wouldn't expect you to own up to it. The evidence of your behaviour speaks for itself.

The evidence of his IP address speaks otherwise. Please drop this line of attack, Col. You are hurting your own case more than his.

Hang on Xamonas. I'm not talking about his IP address. I asked that question in another thread ages ago and the question was answered directly for me by Pappa. I didn't subsequently ask it again, but colbridiea did in relation to one aspect of the definition of shill, which I posted, coincidentally without any reference to farsight.

The reason I mentioned shill is because it is exactly the kind of tactic deployed by big energy and big tobacco to misrepresent science which is part of the debate in this thread, and I have gone on to quote some articles by George Monbiot to expand on the issue.

The evidence I refer to in farsights case is misrepresentation of science and chaingunning off fallacies never bothering to defend the points which are refuted. I wouldn't yet lump him in with the anti climate debate, because so far, his delusions seem confined to fairly academic bits of relativity and quantum theory.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

First let me apologise for attributing your post to Colubriidae!! The two of you do seem to be playing tag-team here - perhaps I should check your IPs...

Farsight has his own theory on the nature of electrons. I can't see any agenda apart from that. He has made efforts to address serious criticism, explain his theories and provide corroborating evidence. I don't claim to have an understanding of the fundamentals sufficient to decide on the veracity of his claims but I know enough to know that they are not complete fantasy and do not wildly contradict those aspects of SR, GR and QM that I can follow. I also know enough to see that all he has done is to repeat his original assertion, providing extra information and expanding on his theory where required in order to clarify some of the points that people disagree with. He certainly hasn't moved the goalposts or changed his tack in order to throw up a smokescreen.

It is clear that you don't agree with him. So argue or ignore. Those are your options here. Continued accusations, vague sneers and insults will end up in you being warned, not anyone else.

Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!

[Twiglet]

Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!

I can no more refute his theory than I can refute that God exists or that the FSMs noodly appendage controls everything. However, I and various other posters have very firmly evidenced that his posts are totally at variance with scientific consensus and no more deserve to be called science than the FSM. I am not trying to make this thread about farsight. There are quite enough of those already.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!

I can no more refute his theory than I can refute that God exists or that the FSMs noodly appendage controls everything. However, I and various other posters have very firmly evidenced that his posts are totally at variance with scientific consensus and no more deserve to be called science than the FSM. I am not trying to make this thread about farsight. There are quite enough of those already.

Then stop calling him a shill.

[Twiglet]

Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!

I can no more refute his theory than I can refute that God exists or that the FSMs noodly appendage controls everything. However, I and various other posters have very firmly evidenced that his posts are totally at variance with scientific consensus and no more deserve to be called science than the FSM. I am not trying to make this thread about farsight. There are quite enough of those already.

Then stop calling him a shill.

Excuse me?

I linked the word shill, and went on to discuss it. Farsight reacted to that link as if it was an accusation, his problem not mine. If you are going to moderate what I say, which you clearly are doing in bright blue, then please react to what I say rather than someones elses reaction to it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!

I can no more refute his theory than I can refute that God exists or that the FSMs noodly appendage controls everything. However, I and various other posters have very firmly evidenced that his posts are totally at variance with scientific consensus and no more deserve to be called science than the FSM. I am not trying to make this thread about farsight. There are quite enough of those already.

Then stop calling him a shill.

Excuse me?

I linked the word shill, and went on to discuss it. Farsight reacted to that link as if it was an accusation, his problem not mine. If you are going to moderate what I say, which you clearly are doing in bright blue, then please react to what I say rather than someones elses reaction to it.

It was an accusation. The blue post was in direct response to you repeating the accusation here:

As for you being a shill, well, if you are I certainly wouldn't expect you to own up to it. The evidence of your behaviour speaks for itself.

Please drop it.

[Twiglet]

Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!

I can no more refute his theory than I can refute that God exists or that the FSMs noodly appendage controls everything. However, I and various other posters have very firmly evidenced that his posts are totally at variance with scientific consensus and no more deserve to be called science than the FSM. I am not trying to make this thread about farsight. There are quite enough of those already.

Then stop calling him a shill.

Excuse me?

I linked the word shill, and went on to discuss it. Farsight reacted to that link as if it was an accusation, his problem not mine. If you are going to moderate what I say, which you clearly are doing in bright blue, then please react to what I say rather than someones elses reaction to it.

It was an accusation. The blue post was in direct response to you repeating the accusation here:

As for you being a shill, well, if you are I certainly wouldn't expect you to own up to it. The evidence of your behaviour speaks for itself.

Please drop it.

Sorry Xamonas but I really don't get this, so perhaps you can explain it to me once and for all, and clear up my confusion. In previous threads you have made it clear that you do not moderate content technically, but you do moderate ad hominem attacks and courtesy.

I did not call farsight a shill. I linked in the word shill, and subsequently much later, in response to farsights accusation of calling him a shill.. which I didn't do, I responded by saying that the evidence of his posts speak for themselves.

You have asked me directly to "refute his theoies" - were you asking that as a moderator or a member? I'm having a hard time distinguishing what capacity you are posting in.

I did not make an ad hominem attack, either in my original post or my subsequent reply to farsight. I have quieried the scientific accuracy of his posts in this and other threads, but what's wrong with that?

If I am reacting in any way defensively here, it is because from where I sit, you seem intent on defending farsights right to post his speculations in the science section, without being called to account on the validity of anything he says from a technical viewpoint, and yet, above, you are asking me to account for myself technically, and I am just wondering in what capacity you are doing that, or how you would even know (given your own self declared unfamiliarity with the science) if I had done so.

I was not making an issue of this. I ignored farsights reaction and continued to link in articles to explain what I meant by shill (which you asked me to do as well as asking me to qualify whether even linking in the word was an attack on farsight) - and only after farsight & col had got into it in a major way did I react to the one part of farsights post which concerned me. For the record, I don't think farsight is a shill, I think he has deluded himself into the belief that his speculations are scientific, rather than just speculations.

Where were you on that occasion asking farsight to desist from accusing me of attacking him? Instead you choose to step in as a mod to defend farsight after he had accused me of doing something I didn't do, and me having the audacity to respond to it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Twiglet,

I asked you directly what you meant by "Shill". You didn't answer but Col did. You then posted links to and extracts from articles about climate change deniers, creationists and their tactics. You now claim that these clarified your intent in posting the shill link. I fail to see how.

I have seen no evidence that farsight is either a climate change denier or a creationist. He has a theory that he has put forward for discussion and that is continually met with derision. You were the one posting links that did not support your assertion (HERE and HERE) and farsight was right to call you on it, in my opinion. If you can show that he has an agenda other than asking for opinions on his own ideas, I would like to see the evidence. If you can do this, I will concede that your links are relevant, otherwise, you are making exactly the copy pasta claims that you accuse him of in those very links! I ask again, what did you mean by "shill"?

He is speculating on an area of science that is the focus of intense speculation. String theory is speculation. The standard model is speculation. Let him speculate a little more - if it is obviously wrong, attack it with scientific arguments, not ridicule. Or just ignore him.

[Twiglet]

Twiglet,

I asked you directly what you meant by "Shill". You didn't answer but Col did. You then posted links to and extracts from articles about climate change deniers, creationists and their tactics. You now claim that these clarified your intent in posting the shill link. I fail to see how.

I have seen no evidence that farsight is either a climate change denier or a creationist. He has a theory that he has put forward for discussion and that is continually met with derision. You were the one posting links that did not support your assertion (HERE and HERE) and farsight was right to call you on it, in my opinion. If you can show that he has an agenda other than asking for opinions on his own ideas, I would like to see the evidence. If you can do this, I will concede that your links are relevant, otherwise, you are making exactly the copy pasta claims that you accuse him of in those very links! I ask again, what did you mean by "shill"?

He is speculating on an area of science that is the focus of intense speculation. String theory is speculation. The standard model is speculation. Let him speculate a little more - if it is obviously wrong, attack it with scientific arguments, not ridicule. Or just ignore him.

First of all, I never called farsight a shill. Period.

I reacted to his accusation that I did by saying the evidence of his posts speak for themselves in relation to Monbiots arguments, and clarified what I meant in a subsequent post, saying that he throws out scientific falasies and never acknowledges when he has been refuted. If you want me to back that up, I'd rather we split the thread because it will involve a whole lot of technical posts and it just isn't relevant to the discussion being held here.

I am under no obligation to explain what his agenda is, I'm not a psychologist, and I frankly don't care about the inner workings of his mind.

This thread isn't about string theory or relavtivity. Please show me where, in this thread, I have ridiculed farsight, with a quotation. I think you will be quite unable to do so. I have certainly ridiculed his ideas on other threads with scientific reasoning, but confining ourselves to this thread, please show where I have ridiculed or attacked farsight, with a supporting quotation.

If you don't like what I post, that's fine, but if my posts are within the rules, I don't see why you feel compelled to call me on them as a moderator.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You call farsight evasive but you still haven't answered my direct question.

For the third time. Why did you post the "shill" link? If you were not accusing farsight, what was its purpose?

[Twiglet]

You call farsight evasive but you still haven't answered my direct question.

For the third time. Why did you post the "shill" link? If you were not accusing farsight, what was its purpose?

The link on shilling is entirely relevant to lobbyist techniques (tobacco, big energy) in undermining scientific findings with misinformation, which speaks to the OP. The subsequent Monbiot articles elaborated on that point.

NB Xamonas... I replied to you at the end of Page 2 of this thread:

The reason I mentioned shill is because it is exactly the kind of tactic deployed by big energy and big tobacco to misrepresent science which is part of the debate in this thread, and I have gone on to quote some articles by George Monbiot to expand on the issue.

So you accusation that I evaded your point are completely without foundation. Perhaps reading the answer I gave the first time round is a more productive use of your time than repeating a question which has already been answered some time ago?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You call farsight evasive but you still haven't answered my direct question.

For the third time. Why did you post the "shill" link? If you were not accusing farsight, what was its purpose?

The link on shilling is entirely relevant to lobbyist techniques (tobacco, big energy) in undermining scientific findings with misinformation, which speaks to the OP. The subsequent Monbiot articles elaborated on that point.

NB Xamonas... I replied to you at the end of Page 2 of this thread:

The reason I mentioned shill is because it is exactly the kind of tactic deployed by big energy and big tobacco to misrepresent science which is part of the debate in this thread, and I have gone on to quote some articles by George Monbiot to expand on the issue.

So you accusation that I evaded your point are completely without foundantion.

No they are not. You have only described the contents of the link, NOT why it was posted directly after farsight's post without further comment.