/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8032955
>If I attacked a strawman of your argument, then you need to make your actual argument clear, not butthurtpost about credentials that you have no expertise with.

No. That's not how debate works at all.
You need to learn both the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method.

"Argument from Silence" is a fallacy.

And I didn't yell about credentials, I pointed out that what I put down isn't some fringe theory.
What you put down however is anti-science and basic simplistic denials

And then you end it again with the "Argument from Silence" and imply the "Argument from Ignorance".

First step to being a scientist:
NEVER USE FALLACIES
NEVER USE BULVERISM

You're an idiot. A anti-epistemological, fallacy using idiot.
And you expect people to teach you things?
No. Never. You're supposed to teach yourself.
It's called being an autodidact.

I'm not going to spoon feed you anything, you fallacy using drone.

But I can answer all of your questions and more.
I could even introduce fundamentals so simple to understand they would completely change how you see everything.
But you don't deserve it because you used strawman attacks.
It's not just disrespectful, it proves you can't be taught because you're dedicated to lying to yourself and others so that you never have to change your mind.

So why waste my time if you're just going to keep cycling in fallacies and then demand answers when you won't even accept the ones already given?