On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:53:26 PM UTC+2 [email protected] wrote:
> Sorry LC, you as a physicist probably don't have time or interest to > answer PB's assertions, but refutation rationally requires a person to show > how Lisa Randall is wrong? The same with Sorli in Slovenia. On the other > hand if you don't like beer, nobody is going to make you like beer. Are you > obligated to enter into endless discussions concerning assertions on > physics that you know to be wrong? Naw. Most days, I just don't have the > interest in purported, dark-matter life, anymore than I have the interest > in angels. From our limited perspective today in 2021, the likelihood of > other civilizations appears remote to the point of having become > uninteresting. Refuting may best be done by lawyers, but dismissing your > colleagues' works seems much more sketchy. > That's upside down. When making non-standard assertions the burden of proof lies with those that make the claims. There are always unknown phenomena, which doesn't count as evidence. The existence of angels/dark matter entities is not something one can simply invert by saying "well, prove me wrong", unless one lives and is totally enchanted by local little internet/social-media bubbles. If you need lawyers for refutation and are irritated by sketchy behavior, then the suggestion to avoid the internet is appropriate. Because along those lines, you now have to believe in dark matter angels or pay a lawyer to refute it for you. Otherwise you may seem much more sketchy yourself. James Wright -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75dd582e-8778-4560-84c6-fe2d1b67d855n%40googlegroups.com.
