Post #474: “my position is your explanation for the collapses is fake science, and my evidence for this is that it cannot be reproduced in any way, shape or form”
Yes. Quite a sweeping statement wouldn’t you agree? Practically begging to be challenged. Incidentally I also said you and all your experts wouldn’t be able to reproduce the “collapse effect” with Lego even if you spent ten years playing with it, after you started wibbling on about toy boats.
Although I made it clear I was being categorical for rhetorical effect, you had a choice when I made that statement: You could either have proved me wrong by offering evidence that the “collapse effect” had in fact been experimentally validated, or you could’ve gotten abusive, get told off by the mods, whinge to the mods, invent some “rules” you then claim I’ve made up which somehow prevent you from being able to able to present the evidence you insist you’ve got, and then sulk childishly about the need to follow these “rules” for pages and pages while the discussion goes nowhere.
Post #476: “you are clearly unaware that if “expert” conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, shape or form, they should not be accepted by anyone”
A statement of fact.
Your first claim here is that the current expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way, shape or form. This is a positive claim.
So prove me wrong; when I say “tested” I of course mean successfully validated through testing.
I responded to your claim here:
Post #477: “You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.”
Yes, I do not think that the expert conclusions have been properly validated and I do not think they can be experimentally reproduced. You haven’t proved me wrong yet…
You responded here:
Post #478: “That’s easy to prove: no testing or reproduction of results has been done”
This is another positive claim.
An important dimension to the scientific method is admitting you’re wrong when you’re shown to be wrong. I would love to have these statements falsified, which is why I made them in such sweeping terms. So where is this evidence of yours that experimentally reproduces the “collapse effect” that totally destroyed the towers?
Post #482: “the reality is merely that experimental validation has not been done”, “it is my suggestion that we have had no validation because it is impossible”
This is another two additional claims. You assert quite clearly that the ‘reality’ is that experimental validation has not been done. You then ‘suggest’ validation is impossible. Those are two positive claims on your part.
Again, when I say “validated” I of course mean successfully validated through testing. You haven’t proved me wrong yet: it seems you have no evidence. My assertion stands.
So, your claims are the following: the expert conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, no testing or reproduction of results has been done, validation has not been done and validation has not been done because it is impossible.
You haven’t proved me wrong yet: it seems you have no evidence. My assertion stands.
Those are four very specific, very clearly defined claims on your part. I now await you to either prove or retract these claim. You can retract those claims by admitting you have no justification for making them and what you’re actually arguing is your own personal ignorance on the issue. Meaning you don’t know of any such examples, but this does not mean you can assert there are no such examples.
You haven’t proved me wrong yet: it seems you have no evidence. My assertion stands. As I’ve said several times while trying to coax you out of your childish little sulk, if you prove me wrong it will be obvious I have been speaking from personal ignorance, and I will retract my claims.
If you do so, I will then turn to my burden of proof for my claims.
I predict, however, that you will continue to sulk about your “rules”.