"Prima facie" just means "on the face of it". I said that logic, on the face of it, is correct. You agree with that. How can you then ask for "prica facie evidence?" If we agree that logic is, prima facie, correct, then by definition of "prima facie", the burden of evidence is on you. Photons are not both particles and waves. "Photon" is just a term used in a particular model of light; one that models light as a particle. In fact light is neither a particle nor a wave; in some models we model it as a particle and in some models we model it as a wave. There is no contradiction here. And even if it were true that light was both a particle and a wave, you have not shown that there is a contradiction in "X is a particle and X is a wave". You are overestimating what logic is supposed to be. Logic (or a logic) is just a set of rules for manipulating symbols. I doubt it is "a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference". I do not see how there is anything illogical about there being a nine-dimensional space. To show that there is something illogical, you will have to derive "A & ~A" from some necessary premise of there being a nine-dimensional space. Your move, creep.

First, I apologize for the harsh words. They are very atypical and uncalled for in a debate such as ours. That said, yes, logic is indeed prima facie but you offer no prima facie evidence to substantiate your premise. Again, how can you claim the dual nature of say, a photon being both a particle and a wave. This dualism completely negates Aristotelian logic as a means to resolve the paradox. Logic is a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference. So, please explain to me logically how there can be a nine dimensional space as postulated in string theory. In speaking to such a state, logic is useless in resolving or understanding it. Even the physicists who diabolically conjure up such concepts admit they cannot be understood intellectually or logically. So again, logic has its place but is useless in some instances such as string theory and yes, the dual nature of photons.

Logic is, prima facie, obviously right. Therefore the burden of argument is on you. I have described what you need to show in order to make your case, and you have admitted you cannot do so. I know who Stephen Hawking is, he lives next door to me. However, his work is entirely irrelevant to the debate we are currently having. Putnam and Dummett have written on precisely our topic.

What? I don't know it either. I was expressing my delight, not disapproval.

thankee. I take a bow.

yeah, so I don't know the correct term for a midget fetish. sue me.

The last one is abut ed gein. If you picked it up, doesn't that suggest a little about your mental state? I am amoral. Just to set the record straight, I am a modified hedonist/autotheist. As nothing in the universe has inherent value, I am free to give it whatever value I deem fit. This is better than the bible! better than ayn rand! better than the beatles!

Talk about arrogant! You give the word new meaning. So my books are rubbish, are they? Stephen Hawking is widely regarded as the most accomplished experimental physicist since Einstein. The Chicago Tribune stated, "The story of a remarkable man, Destined to rank with Galileo, Newton and Einstein." Only one of many accolades for this incredible man who has suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis since 1962. Neither Putman nor Dummett could hold his jockstrap. "Light is light" is it. Your logic is quite overwhelming. Thus far, you have said nothing that even vaguely supports your misguided perceptions regarding the dual characteristics of light. My books may sound like rubbish to you but such a statememt is typical of those who disparage a person or thing out of ignorance and a closed mind. So, fuck off, turkey.

yeah -- I might need to recompile the database. kinda dreading something that may well break globealive, poemranker, nfg, and imaginaries all at once.