Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'We covered this same point over a year ago.'

Which is why you lost that thread's argument :)and you still wouldve lost if you brought a scientist on. 

Sarkeizen:'So again.  You lose. '

In your mind and your mind alone

[sarkeizen]

Sarkeizen:'It's your argument, not mine.You have to do the work to create it.'

I did the work.

Nope.  If you go up and read this thread (or the prior one) the work required was a formal argument.  You did not provide one, if you could you would be able to point to a series of steps which necessitate an agreed upon conclusion (and "necessitate" means that there is no domain specific knowledge required).

So you have provided no formal argument, hence your work was not done. QED.  I mean as much as you want to pretend that:

i) Profits gives himself multiple cranial traumas daily (probably true assumption)
ii) Therefore he knows the secret to making unicorns

is a valid and true argument. It isn't.  Where it falls down is making an argument between i) and ii) which requires no domain knowledge.   If you attempt to remove the restriction against domain specific knowledge then all arguments are formal and true because at any point you could claim that some expert in unicorn-ology exists which states that i) necessary and sufficient to prove ii).  Even if you know of no such expert that doesn't necessitate that such an expert doesn't exist.  Hence in order for this argument to be formal AND true.  You can not depend on domain specific knowledge. QED

The fact that you can't understand this is interesting.  Do you have any idea WHY you are unable to comprehend this?  I'd be interested in hearing your ideas why you are so brain-damaged in this way.

[sarkeizen]

Sarkeizen:'So again.  You lose. '

In your mind and your mind alone

Nope.  It's easily absolutely PROVEN that you lost the argument which was to: PRODUCE A FORMAL ARGUMENT.

No formal argument is here.  So you lost that argument.  QED.

If you think I'm wrong you only have to produce a series of steps which require absolutely no domain specific knowledge.  Which you already have admitted that you haven't.  So again, by your own words you have failed. 

These conversations always make me feel super happy.

[Pirate88179]

Nope.  It's easily absolutely PROVEN that you lost the argument which was to: PRODUCE A FORMAL ARGUMENT.

No formal argument is here.  So you lost that argument.  QED.

If you think I'm wrong you only have to produce a series of steps which require absolutely no domain specific knowledge.  Which you already have admitted that you haven't.  So again, by your own words you have failed. 

These conversations always make me feel super happy.

Pardon my ignorance but...what is QED?  Obviously there are gaps in my education it appears.

Bill

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'You can not depend on domain specific knowledge.'

You can if the argument requires domain specific knowledge.bring a fucking scientist ONBOARD mr sarkeizen and I'l settle the score in two seconds flat.you threw a socrates line at me now I'm throwing a electrochemist line at you in the exact same connotation.its not my problem if you cannot comprehend electrochemistry textbook rules.you demanded and you received.case closed.