JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's even deeper than that. Most of Jabba's errors are conceptual. He doesn't seem to know how to model something properly. He doesn't understand how the parts of a problem correspond to the elements of the notation in which the model is expressed, and conversely how the constraints in the method relate to requirements for the problem. But a curious thing happens when you identify this problem to him: he gives you the chapter-and-verse explanation of how the correct way is to do something. But he never goes on to fix the broken connections. It's as if being able to quote a correct statement somehow addresses whether some other proposition conforms to it. It's as if his argument today is, "Here is an introductory article on Bayesian methods. Therefore my proof is correct." The first statement is true, but it doesn't cure the problems with his proof.
Also today we see a familiar tactic in fringe argumentation. Jsfisher is being told he has to correct Jabba's proof using the proffered article. The question is not "How is my argument wrong?" -- which has already been copiously answered. It's "How does this article show that my argument is wrong?" which is a wholly different question. Limiting how one's critics may respond is a hallmark of dishonest debate. Limiting it to sources the claimant foists is even worse. This fits the pattern of demanding a specified rebuttal from existing authority, which Jabba has tried before. Jabba wants to know where in the literature it specifically forbids him from doing what he's doing. If it's wrong, as we claim, then he suggests there should be some specific page number in some authority that says in so many words, "You can't do this with that." It begs the question that the appropriate literature is, or contains, a comprehensive laundry list of dos and don'ts that could conceivably arise in any practical application of the science. It proposes to negate any refutation based on expertise and ad hoc derivation, which is what jsfisher and others have provided. Obviously that's not how knowledge works.
All of this is part of a larger scheme to limit debate, which in Jabba's case consists of this plus also limiting his responses to one person at a time, foisting ground rules, etc. He seems to want to subject his theory to enough discussion to purport that it has been thoroughly examined, but not enough to actually require it to be valid.
