• KidnappedByKitties
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      Every claim where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.

      There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.

      • KidnappedByKitties
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Unfortunately I don’t agree.

        Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

        Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          They provided the DB data so your argument for all of those reasons is invalid. They could have easily spent a single sentence providing the CFM data. So no, not a single one of those reasons is valid to omit 6 words.

          They made a claim, they didn’t need to mention the power claim, but they did. They should have omitted the claim itself using your logic, instead of the supporting data. The argument is flawed itself.

          and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary.

          Like knowing making a discharge tube longer or shorter affects its aerodynamics….? So we know the claim is false already…? Their ambiguity is meant to mislead people with zero working knowledge of the subject… anyone with any experience will see its flaw immediately.