The Nancy Pelosi Response of Type “Are you serious? Are you serious? Because I Don’t Have the Technical Knowledge to be Able to Respond to Your Challenge,” A Derivative Being the Woit-Type of Type “That Doesn’t Deserve A Response Either, Probably Because I Haven’t Thought About the Technical Logic Underneath Popper’s Falsifiable Any More Than Pelosi Has Thought About the Technical Details of the Constitution”

The link: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’ (cnsnews.com)
A quote:
CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question [...]

Woit-types again demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of Popperian falsifiable, where I ignore the Popperian illusion that falsifying universal statements can establish science on a deductive rather than inductive foundation, for the negation of a universal quantifier is an existential quantifier, and Popper’s very objection to universal claims being based on the existential, on inductive evidence, means that the use of any existential quantifier in a science claim makes that claim inductive rather than deductive; in summary, a claim with a universal quantifier, after negated, contains an existential quantifier, therefore the negation of the statement is inductive and not deductive as Popper says, you can’t have it both ways; using experiment as a basis for a logic claim can never result in anything but inductive logic, even when falsifying a universal, but, again, I ignore Popper’s illusion for the moment

In On the Defensive, Peter Woit links to a Woit-type physicist who makes some comments about string theory. Not caring much about the string theory debate, I found a post by the Woit-type where his language, in my opinion, implies he has a typical misunderstanding of Popperian falsifiable, where Popperian falsifiable, as opposed to watered-down [...]

Observationally-sacrificed science by consensus, Peter Woit and Sean Carroll as archetypes, those willing to operate past some observationless threshold, which is why resistance from Woit-types can do no more than lead a horse to a different watering hole

In Nielsen-Ninomiya and the arXiv, archetype Peter Woit is waging war against all those crackpots. Well, not quite. He always shows respect for Sean Carroll.
Not that I’m calling Sean a crackpot. I don’t call anyone a crackpot. I’m thinking about Woit’s inconsistencies. With Woit, with the right credentials and right status, typically of more combined [...]

Useful math as a foundation which prevents the corruption of math

(Below, I refine what the commenter had to say with this comment.)
You cannot corrupt math, although it’s not because there aren’t mathematicians who wouldn’t corrupt it if it could be corrupted. Once mathematicians stray from math, their ability to be logical and unbiased is nothing but average. What can be corrupted is the application of [...]

Falsifiable: Popper’s much to do about nothing much, and Woit and Smolin as the logically challenged (or two non-experimentalists who have a need for science by consensus)

Indirectly, through Lee Smolin, I finally get Peter Woit’s definition of falsifiable, which is actually nothing much more than the standard nonsensical nonsense that’s summarized by answers.com.
In Smolin on the Anthropic Principle, Woit says,
[Smolin] gives an eloquent explanation of the importance of falsifiability for a shared scientific enterprise.
I can assume, then, that Woit is satisfied [...]

Evolutionist’s need to show definitive evidence of what supposedly has definitively already been shown to be true by science

The link: Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution (news.sky.com)
A quote:
Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.
The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years – but it was presented to the world today at [...]

Wolframalpha.com: clueless how to use it until I figured out it’s free Mathematica without having to fire up Mathematica

Because of all the media hubbub, I went to check out the search engine capabilities of wolframalpha.com.
Not having any profound question on my mind at the time, I typed in “multisets,” and it came back with Wolfram|Alpha isn’t sure what to do with your input.
So I said to myself, “I thought you were supposed to [...]

One physicist surprisingly wonders how other physicists can claim that present research can recreate the big bang, an extrapolated event of the long past

In his post Physics Nobel Laureates at Lindau, Peter Woit shows that major establishment players exist who don’t accept the current, loose, establishment definition of science, or, who at least have a tighter personal definition of science, even though their personal definition may still be too loose.
Speaking of the phyics Nobel Laureate Martinus J. G. [...]

The speculative idea that the reason physicists can be made to look like idiots is because they are idiots

In Shouldn’t Something Be Done? and Science and Science Fiction, Peter Woit is displeased with the History Channel’s program Parallel Universes, and so he says,
I don’t really see how an intelligent person can watch this thing and not come away with the impression that theoretical physicists are a bunch of idiots.
In this post, I would [...]

Sean confusing the the past versus the present, confusing the general versus the specific

Sean’s logically-extended-science demands “science never proves anything,” because his “science” is primarily about the past, in comparison to Galileo’s science, which was all about the present.
In arxiv Find: A Realistic Cosmological Model…, Sean links to a past argument of his (the link is in the second paragraph of the quote below) that supposedly should convince [...]