Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > The debunker need only demonstrate that you
> don't
> > have a back yard. He doesn't need to do a
> > metallurgical analysis as well.
>
> True. But lets start with the fact that I do have
> a backyard and lets assume that I have found metal
> pieces with bizarre properties. Is it from a UFO
> or did it drop off from one of the military planes
> that fly overhead on an almost hourly basis? Of
> course I'd go with the military plane. But if the
> military flatly refuses to cooperate in the
> investigation then the UFO factions gains some
> credibility.
Now you're pushing the analogy beyond its usefulness. We can argue hypotheticals all day, and it's no different than Don and Oggy getting into a debate about whether the aliens that built the pyramids wanted to encode Phi or the diameter of Uranus.
>
> Geometry and logic are almost interchangeable. So
> I consider that to be a special case argument.
Sorry. Exact same parameters. A geometry proof is built one logical step following another.
If someone expects people to believe they have rewritten history, then their argument must also be one logical step after another. This works:
A = B
B = C
Therefore
A = C
This does not work:
The Egyptians built the pyramids.
The Egyptians liked banana cream pie.
The Egyptians designed the pyramids to look like banana cream pie.
(Okay, I accidentally typed "banana cream pi" the first time. Too funny.)
Where can anyone argue the second case? It's pointless, illogical, irrational and it could only be somebody's belief, not a valid theory.
> On
> the other hand what constitutes 'evidence' and
> what constitutes 'irrelevant background noise'? Is
> a much more difficult question to answer.
And is not part of this "original discussion" to which we are supposed to be getting back!
LOL.
> EXACTY...Which is why I've become very hesitant to
> judge anything these days. Even the most iron-clad
> arguments can have little bits of rust that build
> up demolishing the machinery of logic.
The logic is fine. It's the data that is chosen to put into the logical system that can gum it up.
GIGO.
> >
> > Logic, however, is not what is at fault.
> You're
> > shooting the messenger; treating the
> symptom;
> > overusing cliches. Oh wait, that's me.
>
> LOL! I wouldn't dream of shooting the messenger!
> Though I do recall a poem from Robt. Frost about a
> messenger tasked with delivering some bad news
> that an army is approaching and will destroy the
> kingdom. As the messenger thinks about it, he
> realizes he's going to be killed the moment he
> delivers it. So he runs away rationalizing that
> the recipient is going to get the bad news anyhow
> when the army shows up, so why should he get
> killed over it?
Because it was his duty.
Where ARE the ethics these days?
>
> Let's look at it from Michael Jackson's point of
> view then. He couldn't get to sleep using any of
> the common sedatives. So, he made the logical
> decision to have his doctor inject him with
> prescription sedatives. He had done this hundreds
> of times before without incident. So, he pursued
> the logical path of having another injection and
> the rest is tragedy.
> >
But his original choice was not logical. There are other treatments besides drugs for such afflictions. He chose illogically the FIRST time. After that, he just perpetuated his own illogical choice/error.
Once again, you are examining the symptom, not the ailment.
> True. But if the debunker does provide a viable
> alternative then they have reached the acme of
> skill.
> >
Again, beyond the scope of this particular discussion. I agree completely, though.
Having said that, sometimes the debunking, no matter HOW resoundingly accurate, can appear to be self-serving propaganda if the debunker ALSO has a "competing theory". (Shall I briefly remind you of how all studies paid for by oil companies are automatically discounted in the global warming debate?)
I think we've beaten this one about as far as it can go.
Have a great night, Rick. And I SWEAR I am going to get to TBC one of these days. I've got several writing projects in the works, and they must take precedent. Sorry! You know the routine.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.