Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

[TinselKoala]

Ockham's Razor slices clean, once again.
This is the oldest magician's trick in the book. And it's so simple that I didn't even think of it until yesterday, myself.

Mylow, if you're reading this, I'd be happy to have a dialog with you, in public or private. I know some very good people in Chicago; I'm sure we can get you the help you need.

[TinselKoala]

Look, the guy fools you with some fishing line and a BS patter, then looks you right in the eyeballs and pretends to instruct you, individually and by name (or handle) on how to place magnets so your replication will run.
And you still wonder whether he's a fraud, or just another lunatic?

Observe the data. Then make a theory that is consistent with ALL you observe. Then use that theory to generate a testable hypothesis. Then try your damndest to DISPROVE that hypothesis. If you cannot, no matter your best efforts, then you have the right to assume, for the moment, that your theory MAY be correct. But if you CAN disprove your hypothesis, you can know something for sure: the theory was wrong. FOR SURE. So you can drop it and generate another theory, which now must also account for ALL you observe including the new results from your disproof experiment.

(sorry to shout, but some folks seem deaf)

But what you can see happening here is the inverse process.
You have a theory, then you look for observations that support your theory. You generate a hypothesis (mylow's motor works, because HJ's theory says it will) and then you try your best to PROVE that hypothesis (exact replications, et cetera). But when you cannot, you learn nothing, and you still hang on to the theory--because after all, some other factor could have kept your replication from working. So you keep on trying experiments designed to Prove your theory, and if it's wrong you'll never know it.

The first method is called the "Scientific Method". The second method is called pseudoscience.

If it's raining, the streets outside will be wet. (theory)
Observe that it is indeed raining. (data)
Are the streets wet or not?

If it's raining, the streets outside will be wet.
Observe that the street outside is indeed wet.
Is it raining or not?

The overwhelming mode of reasoning here follows the second example. You are observing that the street is wet, and you are concluding that it is raining.

This is of course a logical fallacy. It even has a technical name. I'm not making this stuff up.

If there is to be a science of overunity, it must be a genuine science, not a pseudoscience, and must use the Scientific Method, and properly, just like any other real science.

[markdansie]

@TK
Bravo one of the best explanations of scientific theory in simple terms I have read.
i hope to share with you oneday my experiences and research..I prefer not to do that in a public forum as it involves many others.
Mark

[Justalabrat]

More debunking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaiFaZzzoqY

[nyctuber]

/thread.