On 11-12-15 03:52 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly
from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi
can or cannot do.
Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that?
This is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion
about rules of logic.
I am not even talking about the content of your statement!
Well then, please do talk about it. Seems to me, that's the issue!
I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be
falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot
prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X,
Y or Z.
Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way? Of course you can
prove someone can accomplish X, Y and Z. By finding someone who can
and showing that they can.
You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before
determining whether this is true. That is impractical.
I don't see what you're getting at. Or why or what it has to do with
this discussion?
If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about
logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE
PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi.
OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can
understand. My last formal logic class was sometime ago.
LOL ! This has turned into an entertaining discussion.
I'll stick an oar in, and you can all ignore it. (I'm sure you've
already grasped this point, MY, but none the less here it is...)
Jed's argument, MY, is basically that, by (in effect) saying "Somebody
somewhere would be able to come up with a trick that fooled all
observers", you've made a statement which by its nature can not be
proved false. (It would require an exhaustive search of all possible
methods for faking it, which is not practical.)
As simple as that. Jed has, after all, a technical point, but it's not
worth enough to win the match.
The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad
absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical
conclusion, which goes something like this: "If you can't think of a
specific way this scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then
it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved
his claims."
The latter, though it follows logically from Jed's position, isn't an
argument most folks would buy into, I think....
(FWIW I still favor sleight of hand and misdirection, with a minimum of
special equipment, but whatever... If Rossi's really any good and
handles his exit gracefully enough, we'll never know how he did it, and
five years from now we'll still be arguing over the one that got away.)
