The science of making a hoax

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: This example illustrates the distorted use of logical arguments ... theories like the MM ... should be considred a hoax<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Either that, or it illustrates pontification by wanta-be experts in logic who apply its rules with no real understanding of their meaning.

In the above example, substitute the word "gravity" for "gravitons" to see (A) the absurdity of the conclusion; and ( that it has nothing to do with the Meta Model.

Of course, we are left to guess what the "hoaxers" might have said that was anywhere near as convoluted as this "example". But that's usually the way with sound-byte put-downs -- long on invective and short on specifics. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

In the above example, substitute the word "gravity" for "gravitons" to see (A) the absurdity of the conclusion; and ( that it has nothing to do with the Meta Model.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, you can also substitute "hoax" for "gravitons". But why not stock with the perfectly clear statement?

(A) The conclusion is absurd because there is a bad connection between the use of logic and theories based on non-proven premises.

( Do Gravitons have anything to do with the MM? If yes, the statement is perfectly clear, the use of logic rules impecable and the conclusion stunning.

If you can find anything wrong other than calling it non-sense let me know. Something that can sustain peer review per se.