L'état de PCT, c'est moi (was MoL and peace work )

[Martin Taylor 2018.07.14.23.06]

That's really good! Your reference state for a variable is correct

because it agrees with your reference state for that variable.
That’s the logical equivalent of your computation in the curvature
paper that you can compute V because you have the equation V=V, so
the value of V you get must be correct.

Since in your rebuttal you refused to engage ANY of the criticisms

in my comment note, but substituted instead never-made criticisms
you were able to refute, I think that statement goes into the
gallery of the great untruths of the age. Why make it?

What's the advantage to you of refusing to deal with scientific

points people bring up about your work? In what perception you
control would it create error if you were to accept normal
mathematics or physics as being valid? When your work is good, it’s
good, but when you make a mistake, why does it seem so difficult for
you to correct it? In the curvature paper none of the criticisms
were relevant to a PCT interpretation, but you make out that all of
them were intended to refute a “correct PCT analysis” of the
experimental findings. Why?

I don't expect an answer to a question raised, but I wouldn't be

surprised at an answer to something completely different.

Martin
···

[Rick Marken 2018-07-14_10:59:17]

Martin Taylor (2018.07.13.18.06)

                MT: "Correct" presumably means a

correspondence with something else.

                RM: Yes, with my reference for the state of that

variable.

                            RM: So what I believe is that there

exists a “correct” reference state for
that variable – the state that Bill was
controlling for as evidenced in his
writings, conversations and
demonstrations.

            MT: That is not true. What is true is that at

least my published rebuttal said that your paper shed no
light on whether or not it is.

          RM: And my published rebuttal to your published

rebuttal showed that what your analysis and conclusions
from it were completely wrong.

                        RM: That is, all the rebuttals to my

paper were aimed at showing that the power
law was not a behavioral illusion.