Free Energy Streaming Media
Recent Posts1
solid state devices / Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Last post by TinselKoala on Today at 02:31:57 PM »The troll in his superficiality would like to use my illustration of the post hoc non propter hoc fallacious reasoning to call into question my own reasoning in the case of Ainslie's Lawyer Letter.
The letter refers.
(Did that make sense? Where have you seen that phraseology before, when it is the letter being referred TO, not doing the referring?)
If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is a logical fallacy.
If it is raining, the streets will be wet. Nobody in these parts has ever seen a wet street except when it is raining. There is no garden hose, no little kid, no fire hydrant, no other source of water around. Every time it has rained in the past, the streets got wet, and every time in the past when the streets have been observed to be wet, it has been or is raining. And, further, it rains every day and the streets are observed to be wet from that rain every day.
Now... I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is an invalid DEDUCTION because of the logical fallacy. This does not mean that it is necessarily wrong, though.
Would I be very surprised to learn that, this time, the streets were wet from some other unknown and extremely rare cause? Of course, because considering the entire set of circumstances and history, it is overwhelmingly probable that these particular wet streets are made wet by ordinary rain. It is a valid induction to presume, until it is PROVEN OTHERWISE, that the streets are wet because of the rain.
This is the correct mapping of my Lawyer Letter conclusion to my earlier illustration of logical fallacy, not as superficially and falsely as the troll would have it.
And the reason I brought the discussion up in the first place has nothing to do with Ainslie's letter or who wrote it, but has everything to do with the thread topic of testing the Tar Baby and evaluating the data therefrom.
Ainslie sees a negative mean power product and concludes from it that her circuit is overunity, COP > INFINITY. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that the negative mean power product can be obtained easily in circuit configurations and circumstances that are nowhere near COP>INFINITY, and that a circuit with COP>Infinity would behave differently than hers does. And the cause of the effect of negative mean power has been explained theoretically and demonstrated experimentally in simulation and hardware. It is not logical for her to conclude from her data that her circuit is unusual at all, much less OU by the claimed amount, and this is shown by the very form of the argument; the particulars are irrelevant. She may provisionally choose to interpret her data as supporting her claim, but when they are shown not to do so by further experimentation, the claims must be dropped since there is no logical foundation that requires them to be true, and in fact they are contradictory.
I am free to believe that it is raining when I observe wet streets as long as I realise that this is not the only possible explanation .... but if somebody shows me the fire crew outside spraying their hoses in the bright sunshine, perhaps I should revise my belief based on the new facts I now have.
I am free to believe, based on what I know at this point, that Ainslie wrote the letter herself, because there is no logical contradiction involved in that belief and because there is suggestive evidence that supports the belief. I will also abandon that belief when... or rather IF.... I am presented with evidence that shows that my induction is impossible, not compatible with the facts.
Ainslie WAS perhaps at one time able logically to believe that her circuit may be doing something unusual, based on the information she had then and legitimate inductive reasoning therefrom. However, further experimentation could always reveal new information that makes that original conclusion, arrived at inductively, contradictory. And that is precisely what has happened. All of this should illustrate why it is important to try to _rule out_ alternative explanations for unusual or unexpected results, so that we don't succumb to the temptation of holding to a false conclusion in the face of contradictory data.
Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms.
The letter refers.
(Did that make sense? Where have you seen that phraseology before, when it is the letter being referred TO, not doing the referring?)
If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is a logical fallacy.
If it is raining, the streets will be wet. Nobody in these parts has ever seen a wet street except when it is raining. There is no garden hose, no little kid, no fire hydrant, no other source of water around. Every time it has rained in the past, the streets got wet, and every time in the past when the streets have been observed to be wet, it has been or is raining. And, further, it rains every day and the streets are observed to be wet from that rain every day.
Now... I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is an invalid DEDUCTION because of the logical fallacy. This does not mean that it is necessarily wrong, though.
Would I be very surprised to learn that, this time, the streets were wet from some other unknown and extremely rare cause? Of course, because considering the entire set of circumstances and history, it is overwhelmingly probable that these particular wet streets are made wet by ordinary rain. It is a valid induction to presume, until it is PROVEN OTHERWISE, that the streets are wet because of the rain.
This is the correct mapping of my Lawyer Letter conclusion to my earlier illustration of logical fallacy, not as superficially and falsely as the troll would have it.
And the reason I brought the discussion up in the first place has nothing to do with Ainslie's letter or who wrote it, but has everything to do with the thread topic of testing the Tar Baby and evaluating the data therefrom.
Ainslie sees a negative mean power product and concludes from it that her circuit is overunity, COP > INFINITY. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that the negative mean power product can be obtained easily in circuit configurations and circumstances that are nowhere near COP>INFINITY, and that a circuit with COP>Infinity would behave differently than hers does. And the cause of the effect of negative mean power has been explained theoretically and demonstrated experimentally in simulation and hardware. It is not logical for her to conclude from her data that her circuit is unusual at all, much less OU by the claimed amount, and this is shown by the very form of the argument; the particulars are irrelevant. She may provisionally choose to interpret her data as supporting her claim, but when they are shown not to do so by further experimentation, the claims must be dropped since there is no logical foundation that requires them to be true, and in fact they are contradictory.
I am free to believe that it is raining when I observe wet streets as long as I realise that this is not the only possible explanation .... but if somebody shows me the fire crew outside spraying their hoses in the bright sunshine, perhaps I should revise my belief based on the new facts I now have.
I am free to believe, based on what I know at this point, that Ainslie wrote the letter herself, because there is no logical contradiction involved in that belief and because there is suggestive evidence that supports the belief. I will also abandon that belief when... or rather IF.... I am presented with evidence that shows that my induction is impossible, not compatible with the facts.
Ainslie WAS perhaps at one time able logically to believe that her circuit may be doing something unusual, based on the information she had then and legitimate inductive reasoning therefrom. However, further experimentation could always reveal new information that makes that original conclusion, arrived at inductively, contradictory. And that is precisely what has happened. All of this should illustrate why it is important to try to _rule out_ alternative explanations for unusual or unexpected results, so that we don't succumb to the temptation of holding to a false conclusion in the face of contradictory data.
Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms.
or do we assume that also Alfred Hubbard was a genius boy ? how old was he in 1919 ? who told him about electricity ? maybe Tesla ? he had bussiness relationships in Pittsburg
I wonder .... 
