Let's expose how badly the Pixie misses the mark... and how dishonest she really is. ( a real PhD would likely have avoided such inconsistencies)
So here is the challenge: Martin is going to show (a) how badly I miss the mark and (b) how supposedly dishonest I am.
Bear that in mind as we go though his post. Do you think he will do either? I am guessing no, but let us take a look.
I back in January said:
Do you think looking for prime numbers is science?
Too funny that the Pix claims to be a Phd yet does not understand the scientific field of mathematics.
Have I badly missed the mark here? Was I dishonest? No. All I did was ask a question.
A question Martin fails to answer. Does he think searching for a prime number is science?
For the record, I do not. The point of asking the question - which he quotes from post #94, and I wrote way back on 12trh January - was to establish what Martin considers to be science.
I am guessing Martin thinks the search for primes is science. But he is so clueless about, well, anything, he cannot support that claim or even dare to say what his position is.
Have I been dishonest in asking him if he thinks searching for prime numbers is science? Of course not!
Have I badly missed the mark in asking him if he thinks searching for prime numbers is science? Of course not!
The pixie attempts to make things up again and aSSumes that just one field (the study of Primes) is a science in and of itself. Yes mathematics is indeed a scientific study and the study of Primes is an aspect of mathematics.
Martin is pretending I think the search for primes is science. I do not.
My position is that maths is separate to science. I pointed this out to him very early in our discussion on the other thread, and we had a long debate about it (see, for example,
here). He lost, of course. But the point is, he should know my position on this.
Science
uses maths, but maths is not science. Maths is not about the real world; maths is abstract. It can be applied to the real world, but it can as readily be applied to a made up world, say with two or four spacial dimensions. Science requires testing in the real world to support its claims. Maths is proved internally without reference to the real world.
This is a fundamental difference that Martin does not get.
Have I been dishonest in saying maths is not science? Of course not!
Have I badly missed the mark in saying maths is not science? Of course not!
I back in January said:
You think repeated testing makes something science?
Hilarious.... yet another dishonest representation and example of the Pix just making things up. I have never said that repeated testing makes ... Repeated testing does not 'makes something science" like you are attempt to push. repeated testing is certainly a part of what science is about.
I can only go on what Martin says. I asked this question in response to this:
"Clearly just giving up is not part of the scientific endeavor....since nobody really knows if the very next system could be the one .... or not... so a few failures are all part of science... they keep on testing. That is what science is about."
Looks to me like Martin thinks science is about repeatedly testing - and so I asked him to confirm.
Have I been dishonest in asking Martin to clarify his position? Of course not!
Have I badly missed the mark in asking Martin to clarify his position? Of course not!
LOL i really do get a kick out of your 'interpretations and mischaracterizations'. typical failed premise response. you keep failing to provide any evidence that I ever said such... ( lol 'getting something wrong makes it science'... you are one special person there. ) I did get a kick out of you claiming that 'fancy technology' many weeks back ... I guess you were so embarrassed by it you tried to tag me as the one who first stated such silliness
And yet Martin stated "
they keep on testing. That is what science is about." I quoted that in post #94, the post he is responding to, so when he states I failed to provide any evidence, that is simply not true.
In fact it looks to me like it is Martin who is being dishonest. It is Martin who has badly missed the mark.
The reality is that Martin dislikes me because I destroyed all his arguments on the other thread. I proved beyond all doubt that he is clueless about evolution, and that his own position is a contradictory mess of front-loading and creationism. Time and time again he lost our discussions, eventually resorting to character assassination because he had nothing else left.
Just look at this last post of his. No arguments, just him asserting he is right, and making various false accusations about me. This is what Martin is reduced to because
he has lost every argument.
at least Inertia's opinion made valid and coherent points.
And his pride is too great for him to ever admit to himself that anything I say is either valid or coherent.
Inerta's opinion was that negative results could go on forever... and that was a valid opinion to question what then?. the point being was really a question of when scientists might throw in the towel... Well given that it would be impossible with our current technology to scan the entire universe one could assume that as long as funding remains.... never. Especially, given the fact that they could find another positive result tomorrow...or next year .... that then then would need to be retested to confirm.
The conclusion - which he choses to ignore - is that SETI can never be falsified. From Inertia's post:
"If the answer is that such hypothesis can never be rejected, regardless of the empirical results, that pushes SETI uncomfortably close to the status of pseudoscience."
Do you think that that is a valid opinion, Martin?
Do you think that that is a valid opinion when I say it, Martin?
Have I been dishonest in asking Martin to explain his opinion? Of course not!
Have I badly missed the mark in asking Martin to explain his opinion? Of course not!
It is sad to see posters like the Pix try their best to look intelligent but get embarrassed over and over... if she really was a PHd like she claims.. well it likely would be different
Here is a great example of his character assassination again. There is no argument, no substance. Just Martin's bitter ranting.
Remember, Martin said he was going to show where I was dishonest, but all he ever did was make that assertion. He never actually showed any evidence because there is none. Martin wants so desperately to believe I am dishonest, that I am just wrong, but the truth is that that is not the case, and so at every turn he fails to support his nonsense.
All he has is empty bluster and false accusations.
It is interesting to look at Martin's posting history over the last few months.
28/Dec
30/Dec 2 days later
1/Jan 2 days later
2/Jan 1 day later
5/Jan 3 days later
12/Jan 7 days later
22/Jan 10 days later
17/Feb 26 days later
16/Mar 27 days later
Back in December, Martin thought he was on to something, and he was posting every day or so. Early January he realised he was losing, and only came back to CARM every week or so. Now he is losing so badly, it is about four weeks before he dare show his face around here!
See you next month, Martin!
