Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/07/04 

Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:56:30 GMT

<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qUVQc.100497$eM2.4036@attbi_s51...
> In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:41139DDF.4060403@btopenworld.com...
> >> newstome@comcast.net wrote:

> > OR, the rest of you are all wrong,

What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation?
Most of the attempts at refutation did not even try to form a sound
argument. Most of them were mere empty rhetoric. Rhetoric is what
people typically use when they run out of reason. If I am as wrong as
it is being proposed that I am wrong there should be at least two dozen
valid refutations. There are NONE!

It never has been that anyone here could show that I was wrong. It has
always been I don't believe that he could be right. It doesn't seem to make
any sense that he could be right. I really don't want him to be right.
Provide me with a single valid refutation, and ONLY this will prove
these assessments (at least to a slight degree) are incorrect.

> > yet so strenuously believe
> > that you are right, that you expend great effort (including denial)
> > in the quest to prove what you already take for granted, and
> > just less than zero effort actually attempting to understand
> > what I am saying.
>
> And even in your psychoanalysis of us, you're entirely wrong. I, as
> well as many other posting here, am a scientist, and scientists are
> nothing if not skeptics at heart. I didn't "take for granted"
> Turing's proof. Until something is proved to me, I have a really hard
> time believing it (which is probably why few scientists are religious,
> although I suppose that's an entirely different subject).
>
> Back to Turing's proof: I didn't believe it because someone told me
> to. I was a skeptic. I read the proof. And I understood it. And I
> also read your arguments. And like many others here, I see exactly
> why and how you are wrong with great clarity.

Then why is it that you have not been able to express this great clarity?
I really don't want to waste my time on an effort this is bound to fail.
I do have much better things that I could be doing, iff, this effort is
bound to fail. So far not a single person has provided me with anything
remotely resembling great clarity that I am wrong. After all this time and
effort, the lack of a valid refutation that I am incorrect, tends to build
an increasingly stronger support case that I am correct.

> And obviously from what
> other people have written here, many others also see this. The fact
> that it's so clear to me what the flaw in your reasoning is is what
> keeps me trying to explain it to you. It's not denial on my part, but
> a sense that surely someone will say something to you where you have
> one of those moments of crystal-clear insight where you go "oh, so
> that's why I'm wrong."
>
> --
>
> That's News To Me!
> newstome@comcast.net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... > What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation? ... There is apparently a much larger difference between "show how Peter ... >> why and how you are wrong with great clarity. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... > What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation? ... There is apparently a much larger difference between "show how Peter ... >> why and how you are wrong with great clarity. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation? ... > time believing it (which is probably why few scientists are religious, ... Then why is it that you have not been able to express this great clarity? ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... >> What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation? ... >> an increasingly stronger support case that I am correct. ... your complete satisfaction, I will keep explaining them in increasing ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... > What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation? ... > I really don't want to waste my time on an effort this is bound to fail. ... it "tends to build an increasingly stronger support case" that you ...
    (sci.logic)