[okamiueru]

> But it may be a valid inference. No one knows, that's the point.

... well, if you were offended by me linking the scientific method... it's because it might bridge the gap in why you think "that's the point".

It seem to me that, after all this, you still fail to understand the argument I've presented. I've made a lot of effort, in good faith, in trying to figure out why, and address it. The argument is also remarkably simple, as is the examples given. The argument wasn't so much physics, as didactics. But we got stuck on the physics part, because we don't share the same understanding of what logical inference requires. Hence... the aforementioned suggestion.

But, it has reached the point of just being silly. One can only lead the horse to the water. Doesn't seem productive to carry on with the spoon feeding.

[stevenhuang]

Oh the irony. The entire point of the video is to explore the other side of the argument. Pointing out the scientific method here only demonstrates your confusion.

It is exactly a problem with didacts with you. I'm sorry you are completely lost when literary devices are used.

And if you still don't see how this may be a valid inference, take it to PBS for even posing it as a possible question to investigate then. I'm sure you'd jump at the chance to tell them they actually don't understand the scientific method. Funny stuff, if it weren't so sad.

[okamiueru]

You.. still don't address the topic. Which leaves me to conclude you are not actually interesting in discussing the same thing. My point is that I do not like when literary devices are used the way PBS uses it. Your counter-points do not make any sense, because it is based on the invalid premise that I do not understand it.

So, what's the point of this? I was explaining things for your sake. You do not seem to care for it. So, just leave it be then?