davesmith_au wrote:I have little time to address those who show no genuine attempt at a rational discussion.
Here is Bridgman's brief description of himself:
W.T."Tom" Bridgman
Maryland, United States
I obtained my doctorate in physics and astronomy in 1994. I currently work in scientific data visualization for the media and public outreach.
davesmith_au wrote:People don't seem to think critically about what they're reading. They see something like Bridgman's blog and think he has some good points. It's not until you break down what he is really saying, that you realize he's not "debunked" anything, he just sets up strawmen which he then burns. Anyone can do that, it takes no scholarly skill whatsoever.
Now you are the one using the strawman argument. The criticism concerning mathematics is not addressed as an ad hom or strawman attack. Most of the discussion of ad hom attacks and strawman arguments come later, but then you stopped reading, so you would not know about that.You give slender evidence that this statement is wrong. Fine -- it could be wrong. However, the statement is not a strawman argument or ad hominim attack. The writer is merely describing what he has observed. He might be wrong, but that's not necessarily indicative of fallacious argumentation. It's baffling that you would think so.
I had to stop reading after that point.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... keptic.htm
Tom Bridgman:
[S][A]
One of the problems with Electric Universe (EU) claims is they seem incapable of producing mathematical models that can be used by other researchers to compare the predictions of their theories to other observations and experiments. ...
Not true. The mathematics is all there, in the appropriate books and papers to which EU theorists frequently refer. Physics of a Plasma Universe by Anthony L. Peratt, Cosmical Electrodynamics and Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfvén, Gaseous Conductors by J.D. Cobine and many more besides. Bridgman conveniently ignores this fact.
The predictable response to such references is frequently that they are "too old" or irrelevant to today's physics, and this from those who seem to have an unshakeable faith in the work of Einstein. The irony is palpable.
terry the censor wrote:> [S][A] One of the problems with Electric Universe (EU) claims is they seem incapable of producing mathematical models that can be used by other researchers to compare the predictions of their theories to other observations and experiments...
You give slender evidence that this statement is wrong. Fine -- it could be wrong. However, the statement is not a strawman argument or ad hominim attack. The writer is merely describing what he has observed. He might be wrong, but that's not necessarily indicative of fallacious argumentation. It's baffling that you would think so.
I had to stop reading after that point.
davesmith_au wrote:Thanks T. I remember back when Bridgman first had a go at Don Scott's TES. Don was quite happy to ignore him, and quite rightly so in my book, but in the end so many people were bugging him about it, that he offered his rebuttal.
People don't seem to think critically about what they're reading. They see something like Bridgman's blog and think he has some good points. It's not until you break down what he is really saying, that you realize he's not "debunked" anything, he just sets up strawmen which he then burns. Anyone can do that, it takes no scholarly skill whatsoever.
Nereid is no better, she just keeps harping on about peer-review. Once you give her some peer-review, she says it is not relevant. Give her something relevant, and she says that publication is not sound. Give her something sound, and she says no-one's cited it... there's no making her happy. But in the whole fiasco, she doesn't offer anything of substance.
I have little time to address those who show no genuine attempt at a rational discussion.
Cheers, Dave.
Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest