|
Posted by Eric Crew on September 19, 2005, 10:34 pm
Please log in for more thread options spaceart@att.net writes
>
>Eric Crew wrote:
>
>> The evidence was stated in this newsgroup and you have either ignored it
>> or failed to see it. You are at liberty of course to ignore it if you
>> wish and I have no intention of spending more time repeating it.
>> --
>> Eric Crew
>
>By "failed to see" I take it you mean "disagree with you".
>
>The so-called "evidence" you have put forward has not in any way been
>ignored. In fact, a number of people in this group have spent
>considerable time examining it in a great deal of detail. The result of
>these examinations is that your "evidence" has been seriously
>questioned and a great many difficulties have been raised regarding it.
>Many of these criticisms have taken very substantial forms---such as
>experiments, mathematical and statistical analyses, etc.
>
>You have assiduously---and often adamantly---refused to reply in a
>substantive form to any and all queries and criticisms. What you cannot
>accept is the fact that your "evidence" and your conclusions regarding
>it have not been swallowed whole and unquestioningly. Anyone who fails
>to do this is assumed by you to have "ignored" your "evidence" when in
>fact they did nothing of the kind. Their offense---in your eyes---was
>to have questioned it at all.
>
>If any one has ignored or failed to see anything, it is you and you
>certainly are in no position to point a finger at anyone else in this
>regard . . . let alone regard yourself as a scientist.
>
>RM
>
I have always maintained that no definite conclusion can be made until
there is more evidence. It is poor science to be dogmatic until then.
--
Eric Crew
| 
XML Sitemap