> On Mar 11, 6:56 am, John Doty whispertel.LoseTheH.net> wrote:

>> Guy Macon wrote:

>>> So now *THREE* people have told you:

>> And if it was one hundred, they'd still all be wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> "The effects you cite are not *necessarily* the
>>> result of the cause to which you attribute them." -ER
>>> "This conclusion does not follow from the premises." -AH
>>> "you simply assume without evidence that A leads to B,
>>> never ever examining whether that assumption is waranted."-GM
>>> ....and still you refuse to even *try* to establish whether
>>> or not the effects you keep talking about are the result
>>> of your alleged cause.
>>> I am really curious; why do you believe something when you
>>> cannot for the life of you come up with any reason to believe
>>> that it is true?

>> Because when there is no alternative that fits the evidence, the
>> existing hypothesis is the only thing one can reasonably believe.
>>
>> I believe that the long/soft class of cosmic gamma ray bursts is
>> produced by hypernovae *despite* the fact that when that hypothesis was
>> first proposed I thought (along with most other astrophysicists) that it
>> was utterly crazy. Of all the hypotheses on the table, that was the
>> least plausible. I and my colleagues then proceeded to gather evidence,
>> and in the process we knocked down all of the other hypotheses. The
>> clincher was GRB030329, which was close enough that the hypernova
>> hypothesis required an easily detectable shell of ejected stellar
>> atmosphere (most bursts are too far away for this to be clearly seen),
>> and our optical friends looked at the HETE-2 location and found it (if
>> they hadn't we would have had *no* hypotheses left). So, not only is
>> that hypothesis the only one left standing, but it has stood up to a
>> critical test. But it's still crazy: how can a stellar collapse produce
>> such an organized energy release? I don't know, so I have no logical
>> reason to believe this. All I have is evidence, and the lack of an
>> alternative that fits it.
>>
>> So, if you dispute me, suggest an alternative hypothesis that fits the
>> evidence (the lack of published Forth). If you can't, I have no reason
>> to disbelieve mine.

>
> I've suggested an alternative hypothesis which you've chosen to
> ignore:
>
> The traditional Forth approach is to solve specific problems by
> extending a Forth into a custom proprietary interpreter targeted at
> that specific problem. The Forth approach is not about producing
> generic solutions for generic problems. Why would it be surprising
> that most Forth code is proprietary?