Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack View Post
We agree, but the reason that I'm not bothered with refuting the particular
erroneous arguments presented is that there is no need, what is needed is
for its supporters to provide a clear explanation of why they think this
argument is valid.

If we can show an argument is wrong, and we trust in the consistency
of (Bayesian) statistics, and of reality at a macroscopic level, then we
don't have to show where a specific argument goes astray, just that it does.
What is more troublesome is an argument supporting the correct result which
contains fallacies. If we see these it is our duty to identify the errors and
explain them.

The upside of this is that we can generate a publication often from this
process.

Needless to say I have difficulty explaining to my significant other that
a fallacious argument supporting something admirable, is still wrong.

RonL