Hmmm, when did I ever draw that conclusion?
When your emotions entice you to make fallacious arguments (this straw man argument, for example), you lose credibility, and that's what I was talking about when I said you discredit yourself.
Here's few other fallacious arguments you seem to routinely favor:
1. An Argument from Ignorance. You display this in a couple of forms:
(I) Because something hasn't been proven true, then it has to be false.
(II) Because you can't prove that I'm wrong, then I must be right.
2. An argument from incredulity: This is closely related to the arguments from ignorance. Basically the claim is that because I don't (or refuse to) believe it, that proves it must be wrong.
3. Asserting a false dichotomy: This is a form of "all or nothing" thinking. You claim that there are only two possible choices, which are mutually exclusive, then argue that if one is false, then other must be true.
4. The Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus fallacy (false in one, false in all): For example: If any part of relativity is false, then it is all false. Or more broadly, if I can show that one scientific theory is false, then they're probably all false.
I won't even mention the ad homs.
Routine resort to such fallacies tends to stigmatize one as a sophist and a polemicist. Such people are generally just trying to win an argument, or to save face for the sake of appearances, irrespective of the "truth." The old sophists took great pride in their ability to "make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger."
The more emotional a person is, generally the less rational they are. Emotion is certainly not the only reason people resort to logical fallacies, but it is often a factor.
David Hume once painted a picture of two ideologues arguing with each other that I always found insightful and amusing:
Something you might want to give some thought to, Marcos. I'm not trying to insult or demean you, just giving my honest opinion (and unsolicited advice).
Great list of fallacies. I try not to use them myself.
Now just because I conceded that you are less prone to getting pissed off than I, that does not mean you now stand on the high ground of scientific truth, and I don't quite.
Ive always suggested that there is no evidence for such and such theory, and the theory is irrational to boot. Then I state what I think is a better view, and acknowledge that they could be a number of other possibilities. When it comes to a case of A is correct, B is not, I look at the claim and in the case of SR, Ill always go to the B option, as ive already found that A cant possibly be correct. In SR there does not seem to be any other alternatives than its true or its all rubbish. It is balck and white.
Actually my view on the errors of science, has never claimed that just because i found a problem with Einstein, then all of science is wrong. I never said that never suggested it and you are putting words into my mouth. In looking for reasons why Einstein is wrong, its totally possible that he was influenced by a bunch or prior theories, each of which could be wrong too. I said many times that Cavendish coming up with the value for the gravitational constant is crappy science if science at all.
The constant is use often in Physics and cosmology, yet its just pure speculation on Cavendish's part. No one has picked up on this statement, yet if correct, then how much of physics is on the wrong track today because of it?
And as far as my discussion with you on the usefulness of LT goes, you have not given much of a reply that amounts to anything. Basically you are staying with it not for any sound reasoning, but simply because you believe that some obscure observations seem to math up with it. Clocks slowing is about the sum of it. Not much to base a critical theory of Physics on, is it?
And I may not have read the specific paper you mentioned before, but I've read what the different experts have to say on LT, and I cant accept any of them for several reasons. I prefer to seek a better explanation than to accept a nonsensical one.
Usually you are able to give a good account for your views of Physics, yet when it comes to LT it seems to me that the convincing and logical statements from you have all dried up.
Here's the thing, You think you are right, the guys that argue with you think that are right, yet if any of you were applying the so called scientific method, someone would concede that one view is superior to the other, and adopt the better theory. But no one ever does.
You never change, they never change, this sort of proves that no one knows whats going on really, or the truth would stick out a little bit more that flat out nonsense.
So from that perspective, my idea that all theories in Physics that have aspects of SR or GR or LT etc, will be also wrong, is a sound rational statement to make. You are never going to come up with a correct theory or equation when your basic underlying concepts include a series of errors.
I cant see why you think that unreasonable.