Re: compression - insights into infinite

On May 30, 10:39 am, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 29, 4:48 pm, Providence <psioni...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

so, disprove his statements point by point or stop posting about you
understanding the scientific method more than anyone else does.

The accepted view amongst all scientific communities is that the
burden of proof of any claim is on the person who is making the
claim.  It is not my position to disprove his claims; it is *his*
position to *prove* his claims.

Or do you think all statements should be treated as fact?

not at all. i'm just saying that the reaction towards the statements
that are 'felt' by individuals to be false should be of the lines of
'prove it', rather than 'that's false'.

someone saying that something is false, seems to me that they are
making that statement as fact, which it, until proven as false, is
not.

as an example..
with jules' work, i can spot a straight up fact that the pidgeonhole
principle denies his method working to his claims of compression into
a single byte. this.. science. done.

for this reaction though i see the original poster mixing psychology,
biology (in terms of upper/lower brain function, body chemistry ->
brain chemistry), into their own blend of observance and truth, and
then someone reacting negatively towards it, in a very unscientific
fashion.

so.. prove it if you have what you consider to be an objective fact.
otherwise, people, stop getting incensed at what you may consider
improperly worded dialog.
.