They're Back - 7 - The One In Which DdH Fires Off A Few Ad Hominems

Check out DdH's latest post over at crank central. The most interesting bit is probably this:

What happens is that a person seems interested, polite, and really
concerned yet when you start arguing logic with them about their
inability to understand the basics of Carezani's work, you quickly
find that they are neither interested, polite, or concerned about
physics truth. This has happened over and over during the last 15
years and it will continue to happen.

It is usually by students of physics preparing themselves to enter the
mainstream. As someone in this fight from Seattle told me, most
people who go into physics are autistic. It is true. They get their
strenght by sitting isolated with themselves or their autistic friends
who consider themselves to be very very smart yet socially, they are
misfits. They find what they think are the weakest kid on the block,
sit at their computer far removed, and pick on this person from an
often anonymous, long-distance. It is very corwardess.

I wonder to whom he may be referring? I think its a bit unfair to claim most physicists are autistic, certainly many may seem to be, especially the more blue-sky researchers, speaking for my own sub field though I find Astronomers to be amongst the most well rounded of scientists. This may well be because I am a socially awkward autistic misfit. I am very very smart though, so maybe it balances out. I could go on for a while pointing out what a well rounded person I am but I think the most interesting question is if I am autistic, what is Dave? Someone that spends all their spare time pushing an obviously flawed theory? The two options I have come up with are; extremely arrogant and self deluding, or, a lying snake oil salesman only interested in selling books or videos.

As for his other claims, well I'm not anonymous, my name is right of the top of the page (to the right if your having trouble locating it Dave), as to the fact that I live on the other side of the world, what am I to do about that? If Americans can't deal with their own nuts (and looking at all the Intelligent Design crowd, they can't) someone will have to speak up for real science. Does it make any difference to the validity of my points that I live on the other side of the world? Last time I checked the same laws of Physics apply in the UK as in California. I'm not picking on any kid, I'm presenting scientific arguments which disprove his theory, if he can't respond in a scientific manner, he shouldn't bother at all. His response so far has been to totally ignore every point put to him, preferring to respond by claiming that we don't understand what he is saying. It is almost impossible to comprehend something fully when it is plain wrong.

His choice of language reveals his lack of interest in debating the soundness of his theory, he is attempting to paint those of us that do argue for real science in a bad light, and himself as a plucky underdog so that he may play the victim and appeal to peoples less rational thinking. He is simply attempting to play to peoples predjudices about what a scientist is like, anyone that knows any professional scientist will tell you he is dead wrong. All this posturing, and that is all it is, is a meaningless distraction, to hide the fact that he has absolutely no evidence to back up what he is claiming. Come on Dave, if your theory is real, then publish some results, in a real peer reviewed journal.

As DdH has decided to get personal I think I can feel free to point out that a linguist such as himself really has no excuse for such appalling spelling, I mean honestly Dave a spell checker can't be beyond your capability can it? Honestly what the hell is "corwardess"? Sigh, even if you spelt it correctly the sentence doesn't make sense. Fool.

As a final thought, near the end he states:

Science is based on observation first, theory second.

I really wish he would take his own advice. We have pointed out many ways that AD just doesn't fit simple experiments, does that alter his thinking? Not one jot. His theoretical approach must be right, despite all the evidence to the contrary, see an upcoming post for more details on that.