(June 19, 2023 at 11:56 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:(June 16, 2023 at 11:30 am)R-Farmer Wrote: Again back to my analogy of turning lead into gold.
Your 'reasonable standard' in my story was when you took an already known defeated process of turning lead into gold, using those finding to assume all other claims are equally invalid.
Meaning your reasonable standard is NOT a reasonable standard. Your reasonable standard becomes a confirmation bias when you refuse to test the formula as prescribed, and substituted your own processes/known failed experiment.
If you made an honest effort you would test the formula as prescribed.
I'm getting really tired of you impugning my honesty. It's not my obligation to test your formula. It's your obligation to demonstrate it, an obligation you are clearly seeking to evade. You don't need to tell, or even be convincing, if you can show.
Did you forget the topic of discussion? We are not talking about a specific subject that 'proof' can be applied to, but rather the methodology in which you gather and apply proof. The reason for this discussion is that if you are only going to source proof through means that confirm your predetermined bias on a given subject, then you never accept anything you do not already want to believe.
