Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

Well, I can only explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you. You have to exert some efforts of your own, if you can, to understand where these differences lie and why should also he logic differ as a result of these different approaches. It's not enough to say inductive and deductive and be done with it. There are differences in application, as I explained, in many different ways, let alone that one of these is discouraged (I repeat it for the umptieth time). It's just naive to even allow the thought that there may not be differences in logic when the whole perspective of these sciences regarding truth differs so much. This is something, however, for you to sort out and hopefully you are equipped to do that, in which I'm not that certain.

[WilbyInebriated]

Well, I can only explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you. You have to exert some efforts of your own, if you can, to understand where these differences lie and why should also he logic differ as a result of these different approaches. It's not enough to say inductive and deductive and be done with it. There are differences in application, as I explained, in many different ways, let alone that one of these is discouraged (I repeat it for the umptieth time). It's just naive to even allow the thought that there may not be differences in logic when the whole perspective of these sciences regarding truth differs so much. This is something, however, for you to sort out and hopefully you are equipped to do that, in which I'm not that certain.

this is utter bullshit omni and i'm calling you on it. differences in application, as you explained was never the subject of contention. this is just another strawman fallacy of yours... you said "different rules than the rules during scientific discourse." which is utter nonsense... there is only one system of logic... not separate varieties for the soft sciences, and the hard sciences, and the squishy sciences, and the lukewarm sciences... ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

[Omnibus]

Because hard sciences nowadays, being strongly influenced societally, do not function as they should, paying, as I said, only lip service to the scientific method. Contemporary hard sciences can be characterized by one word -- dishonesty. So they have been turned into travesty of science. I'm, of course, not talking about such twisted science but what its very essence is. All I've said concerns the essence of true hard and soft sciences. The differences I referred to are essential, not a result of deviant, unfortunate circumstances and flawed politics. I thought I made it clear earlier.

[Omnibus]

Not true. The system of logic actually differs in these areas. What's even more shocking is that the scientific logic (hard science logic) is being violated at every step of the way even in the institutions devoted to be its greatest protectors. Science (real science, hard science, that is) is in shambles and only naive or semi-educated people such as you appear to be from this conversation, don't see it.

[WilbyInebriated]

Because hard sciences nowadays, being strongly influenced societally, do not function as they should, paying, as I said, only lip service to the scientific method. Contemporary hard sciences can be characterized by one word -- dishonesty. So they have been turned into travesty of science. I'm, of course, not talking about such twisted science but what its very essence is. All I've said concerns the essence of true hard and soft sciences. The differences I referred to are essential, not a result of deviant, unfortunate circumstances and flawed politics. I thought I made it clear earlier.

no didn't make that clear earlier, you used it as a red herring fallacy to divert the argument because you couldn't provide a cogent response. just like you are doing now. your opinion on the honesty or lack thereof of contemporary hard science is irrelevant! the logic under debate here is the logic used in reasoning and the same that is used to point out fallacies. that is what started it all remember? i do, it was your erroneous statement declaring what ad hominem was...