Posted: Dec 20, 2011 3:45 pm
Incidentally, page 2 was when I stopped taking your claims to be addressing scientific issues seriously:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... cy#p943184
Never once retracted. You probably still believe you are right. You probably still tell people that falsehood. Scientific knowledge doesn't progress by struggling to make something work when it's so obviously failing, it's about honestly and openly looking to falsify erroneous ideas. When you misrepresent an article to force-fit it to meet your ideological preconceptions, why should I trust any of your assertions that I don't have the tools to independently inquire into. It's about credibility Gary, and you sacrificed yours a long time ago. You made your bed, now lie in it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... cy#p943184
Never once retracted. You probably still believe you are right. You probably still tell people that falsehood. Scientific knowledge doesn't progress by struggling to make something work when it's so obviously failing, it's about honestly and openly looking to falsify erroneous ideas. When you misrepresent an article to force-fit it to meet your ideological preconceptions, why should I trust any of your assertions that I don't have the tools to independently inquire into. It's about credibility Gary, and you sacrificed yours a long time ago. You made your bed, now lie in it.