Basically he's just running around in his own circles. Let me explain it quite simply. One of John's biggest circles goes like this:
1. He assumes that LOA is false.
2. He is against the idea of testing that assumption.
3. Why? He assumes that people will do a "wrong" test.
This is like saying:
(a) "No swans are black."
(b) "Please do not try to observe any swans."
(c) "Why? Because you might wrongly observe a swan to be black."
Oh dear. What kind of logic is that? Would you trust a scientist who comes up with a theory, insists that it is right, but tells everyone that they must refrain from testing it? Yet this is John's reasoning. And he believes himself to be on the path of "truth".
Ahh, the LOA is amazing. The realities we create for ourselves! Look at John's. Weird, huh.
Last edited by Acting Like Godot; 10-31-2008 at 10:22 AM.
|