Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be
needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in
even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can
say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the
subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
Exactly so. And the same should really apply to those parts of the
theory which have not been published outside of the walled garden of
its proponents.
Which gives you a short article saying that this theory is propounded
by so-and-so but lacks the legitimacy of publication or discussion in
any peer-reviewed sources.
Gee! We almost agree!
Perhaps we don't even need to get into the "parts of the theory". If
their primary theory makes no sense at all it follows that what is
derived from that also makes no sense.
Ec