(July 22, 2023 at 12:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 22, 2023 at 9:06 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: As far as I understand it, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim all until he gives some proof. Once he gives some proof, the burden of proof shifts to the person claiming the proof is flawed. Think of The Mad Revisionists, the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist. The burden of proof is obviously on them, because we have a proof that the Moon exists. That proof is that we see the Moon. They claim that proof is flawed, because perhaps the Moon is a hologram projected on some giant balloon, so the burden of proof is on them.

I like how you preface so many of your posts with, ‘As far as I understand it…’ and then proceed at a breakneck pace to demonstrate that you don’t understand it at all.

Boru

(July 22, 2023 at 12:52 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 22, 2023 at 12:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I like how you preface so many of your posts with, ‘As far as I understand it…’ and then proceed at a breakneck pace to demonstrate that you don’t understand it at all.

Boru

If you have a theory about the philosophy of science, you should at least be able to explain why The Mad Revisionists are being unscientific, as well as why the Flat-Earthers are being unscientific. To me it seems that you haven't thought the things you say out.

(July 22, 2023 at 3:10 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 21, 2023 at 5:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No. Place names in Croatia is a trivial topic. It isn’t incumbent upon other people to try to replicate your results. This isn’t cold fusion, ffs.

Boru

I don't understand. Look, if somebody says "I think your experiment is flawed because the collision entropy of the nouns in the Croatian language is significantly lower than the collision entropy of all the words in the Aspell dictionary.", isn't the burden of proof on him, rather than on me?

(July 22, 2023 at 12:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 22, 2023 at 12:52 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: If you have a theory about the philosophy of science, you should at least be able to explain why The Mad Revisionists are being unscientific, as well as why the Flat-Earthers are being unscientific. To me it seems that you haven't thought the things you say out.

The Maddies and the Flatties are being unscientific because they create a multitude of ad hoc hypotheses to keep their ‘theories’ from being falsified (feel free to scroll back to learn what an ‘ad hoc hypothesis’ is).

Boru

(July 23, 2023 at 9:48 am)arewethereyet Wrote: What gave you the idea that this forum would be the place to discuss the names of places in Croatia?

(July 23, 2023 at 9:37 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 22, 2023 at 12:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Maddies and the Flatties are being unscientific because they create a multitude of ad hoc hypotheses to keep their ‘theories’ from being falsified (feel free to scroll back to learn what an ‘ad hoc hypothesis’ is).

Boru

And the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia aren't doing a multitude of ad hoc hypotheses to keep their theories from being falsified? Inventing that nouns in the Croatian language have significantly lower collision entropy than all of the words in the Aspell word list (a hypothesis which can be tested only by a very complicated experiment, which they aren't doing), inventing some unarticulated reasons why the information theory wouldn't apply to the names of places...

(July 23, 2023 at 12:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 23, 2023 at 9:37 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: And the proponents of the mainstream interpretation of the names of places in Croatia aren't doing a multitude of ad hoc hypotheses to keep their theories from being falsified? Inventing that nouns in the Croatian language have significantly lower collision entropy than all of the words in the Aspell word list (a hypothesis which can be tested only by a very complicated experiment, which they aren't doing), inventing some unarticulated reasons why the information theory wouldn't apply to the names of places...

I honestly don’t know enough about the mainstream interpretation of Croatian place names (although I’m sure it’s an absolute HUGE topic [sarcasm]) to answer what those proponents are or are not doing, but offering a suggestion to your methodology is not an ad hoc hypothesis. 

What’s actually going on here is that you, by rejecting all questions/suggestions/criticisms regarding your conclusions, are demonstrating that you want your conclusions to be accepted as they stand, which is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. You don’t really care if you’re right, you simply want other people to accept that you are.

If you were doing proper science, you’d take their suggestions into consideration, run your ‘experiment’ again. Since you steadfastly refuse to do so, I’m forced to conclude that you don’t really care about Croatian place names.

Boru

(July 23, 2023 at 2:17 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(July 23, 2023 at 12:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I honestly don’t know enough about the mainstream interpretation of Croatian place names (although I’m sure it’s an absolute HUGE topic [sarcasm]) to answer what those proponents are or are not doing, but offering a suggestion to your methodology is not an ad hoc hypothesis. 

What’s actually going on here is that you, by rejecting all questions/suggestions/criticisms regarding your conclusions, are demonstrating that you want your conclusions to be accepted as they stand, which is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. You don’t really care if you’re right, you simply want other people to accept that you are.

If you were doing proper science, you’d take their suggestions into consideration, run your ‘experiment’ again. Since you steadfastly refuse to do so, I’m forced to conclude that you don’t really care about Croatian place names.

Boru

But consider the Levy's criticisms of Semmelweis. One of the Levy's main criticisms of Semmelweis was "Why didn't Semmelweis perform a simpler and more convincing experiment, to stop all the anatomical work?". So, was there really a burden of proof on Semmelweis to perform yet another experiment so that Levy might be convinced? Of course not. And neuralbeans is asking me not to do a simpler experiment so that he might be convinced, but some very complicated experiment.