look at that, he really just rephrased the same thing again, and still doesn’t realize that it doesn’t prove his point. how unfortunate, socrates would be disappointed. good day sir

i hope you find someone less intelligent to bamboozle, truly. your ego seems starved

A Socratic proof in E* can be transformed into a Gentzen-style proof in some sequent calculi. Next we develop a calculus of questions E**; Socratic proofs in E** can be transformed into analytic tableaux. We show that Socratic proofs can be grounded in Inferential Erotetic Logic.

don't think socratic proofs are debate related

rather socratic method is better fit

Correlation does not imply causation. ... The complementary idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy,

you would be right there

and there is too much ad hom here for my taste

The Socratic method, also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

idk if this was a socratic debtae

Just verbal beatdowns

you would have been fine if you didn't keep bringing up his ego

we’re done @Shadow✓ so go ahead and get the last word i dont care, @mineyful let me simplify it for you, since you seem to enjoy copy and pasting: the “standard refraction” figure implies downward light refraction. all experimental data implies that light actually refracts upwards. the figure is an excuse, nothing more. yet another piece of math that happens to correlate with reality

i bet the original socratic debates were socrates verbally beating down on people

maybe physically too

I don't think you even read the definition

wow you guys just love your words. i’m happy for you

Refraction can go any direction, depending on how it's entering the medium

Light refracts whenever it travels at an angle into a substance with a different refractive index (optical density). This change of direction is caused by a change in speed. For example, when light travels from air into water, it slows down, causing it to continue to travel at a different angle or direction.

@Morning Dew you're not actually responding to any of my points with actual science, rather making remarks based in either ad homs or evidence-less claims. If you seriously believe you're making any remote argument here by invoking a philosophical debate, you're mistaken. In fact you're somehow debating off a claim I never made, since you're saying that I've said there is no other explanation for this phenomena, which is a strawman.

depending on the angle changes which direction it refracts

depends on medium and source

still waiting for that experiment that proves light refracts downwards, but I’m glad your egos are in tact. if not, please continue writing irrelevant essays @mineyful INCORRECT, no experiment proves that light can ever refract downwards in air. that is simply a lie told to justify something that has never been proven

So essentially throughout this you've acted like a sophist

Stop you guys. LIGHT REFRACTS UPWARDS

🙀😂

Definetly seen your type

let them keep going, i don’t want to prevent their egos from being stroked, afterall its why they’re here

mate you gotta cool it with the attacks

we're just trying to debate

I ask rhetorically since i know there is no experiment to prove what they claim

@mineyful don't, he's baiting with ad homs.

Explain what you mean by "refract downwards in air"

yeah lots of loaded questions and ad hom

He's a sophist, no suprise

a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

I'm gonna head out now you guys have fun

“standard refraction” implies downward refraction. not only do you not have an experiment to prove this, but you contradict the equation by implying that it can actually refract in the opposite of what is “standard” and taken for granted in every equation. by all means, continue projecting sophistry onto me

As much as I try I cannot find a standard refraction definition, do you mind linking a source

I know you've already run away from our debate but in the end you've made no substantial claims besides using a strawman to argue and the consistent ad homs. So mate, you're a sophist.

can’t wait for more words that aren’t A)an experiment or B)an explanation for why you just contradicted yourself