On Nov 17, 11:46 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?

That's not an ad hominem attack, it's a real critique of your
reasoning.
Ad hominem attacks are attacks on you, the person, not on your
argument. Not once was he attacking you, the person, above. He
was attacking your reasoning.

Appeal to authority = logical fallacy. Fact.

Not providing any physical empricial evidence to back your claim,
or theory backed by such evidence, when talking about physical,
empiricial stuff = worthless argument. Fact.

So your argument above contains an amazing 0% worth of valid
reasoning.

Evidence for his claim already exists. You can find it with any good
research into known physics. Look up all the famous experiments
that have been done to derive electromagnetic theory, and see all
the proofs. So the evidence for his claim is already on the table.
You now need to provide evidence and logic to refute it, if you want
to have a case.

I'd say his critique is 99% accurate. The last 1% is because he thinks
you need to "convince" people, which is not quite so as you have no
direct power to change others' beliefs: they must first want to be
convinced themselves. What you need is objective evidence and
logical basis for your arguments, which seems 100% lacking. That
last 1% is not because your argument is good.