Excellent C2. Pushed and taunted, you did an excellent job. As you say, unless one has actually dragged the data and the maths into the cold hard light of day and measured the data oneself and crunched the numbers oneself, or had a bunch of other usually trustworthy people do it on behalf, it could be simply a bunch of writing in cyberspace with no attachment to reality.
Heck, I don't even know that there is really a person called Prodigy, or Griffe du Lion for that matter.
But despite an excellent critique this time, which basically says, "I don't have sufficient information to determine the veracity of SFT", you slipped up on "In other words, it's bunk until proven otherwise."
Unless you have some countervailing reason to falsify the theory, at least theoretically, if not actually proven falsifying facts, then it's at least rude, but also unwise, to say it's bunk.
That implies you have some reason to think it false. But, apart from "I haven't heard from similar experts", you haven't given any reason to think it's false.
I'm with you. I haven't checked his data, or maths = the last time I did linear regression analysis was over 30 years ago. Some peer review would be nice. But since what he presents fits with things I know to be true, I accept it is probably NOT bunk.
It's like Mq's theory on Suicidal Gaia - the planet is cooling, crystallizing, segregating and freezing. The ecosphere is stripping carbon out of the atmosphere and tectonic and other processes are depositing carbon in vast graveyards.
It has been going on for a billion years. Human Greenhouse Effect efforts are puny by comparison, though ephemerally successful. Once we have dug up accessible carbon and burned it, it will soak into the ocean, drop to the bottom as radiolarian ooze, whale bones and fish oil, and then our efforts will be finished.
I have never seen a peer review of my theory, but I can't think of a fault with it and over years of mentioning it in SI, the most worthy criticism is "Your feet stink and you are an ignorant bigot". As you can imagine, that makes me doubt that the critics have got a clue about the theory of Suicidal Gaia.
Everyone seems to insist that Gaia is happily balanced, in an ever-loving sustainable carbon cycle of sunrise, sunset, joy and bliss, but for the depredations of humans.
My attitude to things like Smart Fraction Theory, is that unless I can personally see something wrong with it, I go with it. I might not put all my eggs on the nose, by way of investing cold hard cash in such theories, but I might well be tempted to back then to some extent.
Depending for progress on "peer review" and especially, depending on courts, we would still be back in the dark ages conducting heresy trials.
"Peer review" in the early days said "CDMA is against the laws of physics". I decided that while my Fourier transforms maths was decades old, the theories of Dr Jacobs, Viterbi and co looked faultless to me. So I put the family "fortune" aka "Tonka Truckload of cash" on the nose. No court nor peer review had validated the ideas. Which of course meant the profits were extreme.
Waiting until something is conventional wisdom earns bank deposit interest rates and utility industry dividends.
Now that the profits are piling up, the courts and peer reviews are attacking QUALCOMM, demanding a cut of the loot because they have a monopoly and "monopolies are illegal" [other than the legal one, court system one and government one of course].
Mqurice |
