note the third prescription
The third
definition states "
3 : of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story <an
anecdotal painting> <
anecdotal details>" This does not describe your misuse of terminology to try to support your claim.
James Randi percieves unknown relative to him just as much as anyone else. He encountered an unknown relative to his point of view in term of Steorn's claim. Here is where we can say mystery is apart of James randi's perception.
1) You have not clearly defined "mystery"
2) You are trying to change your use of "mystery" from that of saying that it is an element of James Randi, to saying that James Randi is observing it.
He didnt keep the mystery a mystery,
Correct. He evaluated the probability of the claims being true and; given the laws of thermodynamics, Steorn's actions in this matter, his past experience, etc; he determined that the probability of the claims being true to be so small as to give provisional agreement to the conclusion that the claims are false.
he claimed it was false. (unknown=false)
He stated that Steorn's
claims were false, not that the
unknown is false. Once again, as you have done so many times in this thread, you are either intentionally or unintentionally committing equivocation. You can not just mutate the uses and definitions of words just to suit your argument.
He operated his behavior (writing his blog entry) around the truth value that steorn is a hoax/fraud, and gave what he interpreted as evidence. Evidence simply supports what can be called 'true'.
No. Evidence is evidence. Evidence is used to evaluate claims and determine if the claims are true or not. He presented his claim and the evidence he used in coming to the conclusion that Steorn is a fraud. What you have consistently failed to do in this thread is to show that either Randi's evidence, or logical reasoning, are flawed.
james randi's evidence for Steorns 'fraud' is not inconsistant with commerical administration, and Steorn allows open investigations into such claims as fraud, which james randi could have investigated as well as anyone of us.
Steorn's copyrights and trademarks on any such processes would not be imperiled by their following of standard scientific methodology and allowing open, unbiased peer-review. Additionally, that the claim is in violation with well established laws of physics is sound enough ground to state that Steorn's claims is de facto
false until they prove otherwise. The onus is on the claimant that would change the status quo.
Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.
False choice fallacy. He could be:
1) fooling himself
2) intentionally fooling us
3) misapplying his understanding of physics
4) committing a logical fallacy
5) he's right
6) other
That his target audience is filled with critical thinkers and skeptics puts #2 into strong doubt. #1, #3, and #4 are all put at serious risk, again because of the target audience, but this time because of the knowledge set of said audience. #5 has strong backing by all but a small, vocal minority (yourself included).
When the third value is not considered, it produces either delusion or deception in interpretation and/or application.
You still haven't put forth a convincing argument of this assertion within this thread.
Thus, the intersection between James Randi and Mystery is Deception/Delusion.
Happy?
BF
No, your still trying to use set terminology and failing miserably.
