Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
So much for promises.
|
I knew you couldnt keep away. Its in the blood man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Carl,
Try reading it in the context of the paragraph not as an isolated statement.
|
Its a furphy. Whether in context or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Once again a logical fallacy. FTL is incorrect on the basis of theory, observation and experiment. To argue that FTL may be correct is an assumption in itself that not only contradicts the current science (now) without proof, but requires the future to have a definite outcome.
|
Steven, you cant hope it to be logically fallacious. It must be illogical in fact. You know. Any child will tell you that to say that something
may be correct is not to assume that it is correct. With all due respect you really need to step back a bit on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
An obvious question that arises is where do you draw the line with this mode of argument? Why simply confine it to FLT, why not perpetual motion machines? The logical extension is to science itself.
In other words lets have science turn itself on its head, deny its own experimental and observational data and attempt to second guess itself.
|
Because the subject is so new. Relatively speaking
We know so very little about it and your wanting to close the book on it all and say. This is the way it is. They have a name for this approach, its called "jumping to conclusions". Bad idea and very unscientific. Lets get more data in before we declare it to be impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
I know that it was tongue in cheek.
Steven
|
OK, we'll let you off the hook this time but you know, anyone who didnt know you better might have thought you were putting that argument for real.