Vlorsutes wrote:
I will say a few things that come to mind Zelduh. Your point is that Jinte's math is purely hypothetical and not necessarily accurate because your "experiences" in the field as you put it differ from what her math indicates, and you use a world is flat/round analogy to depict this. I have to say that, if anything, I believe your analogy is backwards. Jinte makes several points given information and formulas painstakingly developed, tested, and proven by several other individuals establishing just how significant the difference between Monk and Puppetmaster would be in a standard situation, and your responses to it give no empirical information to back up your point, just your own personal experiences. Jinte better fits of a scientist attempting to prove that the world is round using data gathered, and you're the individual trying to prove that it's flat because you claimed to have reached the edge but aren't giving any proof that you ever did (not using this analogy to say I think you're wrong necessarily, just using it as an example).
Part of the scientific method to support a hypothesis involves tangible testing and being able to produce results that can be analyzed and, in turn, be tested by others. While Jinte is sitting pretty much on the prediction step of the method, you yourself have already jumped to the analysis step without showing any of your own evidence to support your claims. One of the reasons that your arguments are coming under such criticism is that, while you're fervently arguing one point, you're not actually giving any empirical data to support it. If you gave us clear, tangible information that could be analyzed and tested by others, it'd be one thing, since then we'd be able to either see you're right or perhaps see some erroneous piece that might have inadvertently skewed your tests in your favor. As it stands though, your argument is nothing anyone could go out and duplicate because you're not giving us enough to work with. You're giving your opinion, but not giving enough facts to really support it.
SRD, let's leave the insults out, okay?
Edited, Sep 2nd 2012 12:32pm by Vlorsutes
Part of the scientific method to support a hypothesis involves tangible testing and being able to produce results that can be analyzed and, in turn, be tested by others. While Jinte is sitting pretty much on the prediction step of the method, you yourself have already jumped to the analysis step without showing any of your own evidence to support your claims. One of the reasons that your arguments are coming under such criticism is that, while you're fervently arguing one point, you're not actually giving any empirical data to support it. If you gave us clear, tangible information that could be analyzed and tested by others, it'd be one thing, since then we'd be able to either see you're right or perhaps see some erroneous piece that might have inadvertently skewed your tests in your favor. As it stands though, your argument is nothing anyone could go out and duplicate because you're not giving us enough to work with. You're giving your opinion, but not giving enough facts to really support it.
SRD, let's leave the insults out, okay?
Edited, Sep 2nd 2012 12:32pm by Vlorsutes
A thousand times this.
