In Reply to: Oh, Geez, here we go again posted by geoffkait on November 15, 2022 at 14:00:39:
The problem is your claim of it being a scientific argument when there is little/no evidence suggesting it meets the standards. The claim implies the accepted scientific principles are being adhered to: (1) Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically; (2) Link research to theory; (3) Use methods that permit direct investigation of questions; (4) Provide coherent chain of rigorous reasoning; (5) Replicate and generalize; and (6) Transparency and scholarly debate.
When/where is the evidence any of this research/experiment/debate has occured surrounding cable directionality questions?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Oh, Geez, here we go again - Ugly 11:00:18 11/16/22 (9)
- That all sounds great - geoffkait 14:55:37 11/16/22 (8)
- RE: That all sounds great - Ugly 14:59:41 11/16/22 (7)
- You won't accept evidence that contradicts your preconceived notion - geoffkait 02:45:51 11/17/22 (6)
- RE: You won't accept evidence that contradicts your preconceived notion - tomservo 07:02:56 11/17/22 (5)
- Oh, brother, it's getting deep around here - geoffkait 09:44:21 11/17/22 (4)
- RE: Oh, brother, it's getting deep around here - Tre' 18:53:38 12/18/22 (1)
- Reading comprehension issues! - geoffkait 15:15:16 12/19/22 (0)
- RE: Oh, brother, it's getting deep around here - Ugly 09:45:30 11/19/22 (1)
- Negative vs positive results - geoffkait 15:52:44 11/19/22 (0)