Erroneous Formula

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 7, 2019.

  1. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    If the derivation was valid in every step, yes. No. Ive got it wrong. It is that if the premise is true and the derivation is valid then the conclusion is true.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Sure, if the derivation isn't valid, the circular bit doesn't really matter. The argument then is invalid trivially, and can be dismissed on those ground.

    So tell me, what part of the derivation you have provided here in this thread is invalid, thus making your claims invalid?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Ha ha. I edited post #101. So the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity, does this make it untrue?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Yes if it was the only justification. But it could have another justification namely that it gives the formula a causation agent.
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Let's take a look.

    Yes, that's trivially correct, but it doesn't address the issue of circular reasoning.

    Circular reasoning isn't elegant, quite the contrary. So if "the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity", it's quite an ugly formula.

    Depends on what you mean by "untrue". If you mean "false", then no, not necessarily. If you mean "not true", as in "you can't say it's true based on the reasoning provided", then yes.

    In this particular case, we are talking science, so we have to add Occam's Razor to the mix. You admitted your claim is based on nothing more than imaginations, and you also admitted your derivations are circular. Combine these facts, and your claims can safely be rejected as false (scientifically speaking).
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    What is a "causation agent"?
     
  10. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    After analog to human action: The man moves the book. Then "the man" is the causation agent and "the book" is the subject of the causation.
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Then the answer is no: merely because an argument gives a causation agent to a formula, that doesn't provide any validity to the argument.
     
  12. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    The question is if it makes the premise true.
     
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    The validity of an argument has no bearing on whether the premises are true. That's also a matter of basic logic.

    So the answer is again no: an argument giving a causation agent to a formula doesn't make the premise true.
     
  14. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Isn't it better than no causation agent.
     
  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Not inherently, no, and certainly not if it's false or unfounded.
     
  16. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
     
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,609
    Reported to have this moved to pseudoscience.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    As both of us have just established together: this is merely your imagination, nothing more. You don't have evidence, you don't have calculations, you don't even have valid reasoning. You, once again, present it here as a fact, even after this misleading presentation has explicitly pointed out to you. I cannot draw any other conclusion that this: you are being intellectually dishonest.
     
  19. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    That statement is entirely correct. The tau neutrino start to exist by pair production.
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    1) That's not what I was talking about;
    2) That's another point for which you've failed to provide any evidence, calculations, or valid reasoning.

    So you're being intellectually dishonest again. Have you no sense of decency, sir?
     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,678
    Impossible

    To be intellectually dishonest you need a intellect to start with

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  22. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    There is another reason for dismissing the Weak Interaction. See "Quarks cannot Transform".
     
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    That thread is in the pseudoscience section of the forum, strongly suggesting this reason you mentioned is pseudoscientific in nature. This is the science section; pseudoscientific reasons will not cut it here.
     

Share This Page