Replies

What evasive answers? I’ve been direct. All your replies have been pure sophistry and evasion.

BTW, that reply of yours is another argumentum ad hominem.

Scientists do have to define what they mean when the use a word to represent something. For instance they have to define whether a particle is pointlike or spread out in order to determine its properties and to do accurate calculations … (point-like particles are treated as points as a fudge factor although they have to occupy space by definition, and the word “accurate” is being abused again)

Virtual particles are used in quantum mechanics to come up with the most precise calculations and predictions in science … (IOW, fudging the math by creating standards that may not exist)

Scientists maneuver through the world just as we do, but being more formal about it with definitions and powerful instruments to improve the senses (scientific instruments do not have any effect on human senses)

You're jumping to conclusions, making things up, or just plain ignorant. I'm not sure which one, but I'm pretty sure you're an unreliable source for judging science (personal attacks; which is DU/liberal fare)

I guess two can play at the same game. But honestly, I find it a pyrrhic victory and am saddened by your efforts to demean the level of conversation.