Josheb vs. John Bauer (18 Jan 2026)

[John Bauer]

What is it you think I think you screwed up?

If I know you—and this will test that—then I suspect that you think I screwed up reading your original claim. Specifically, that your moderate position (here) was actually your original position (first here, then here).

But if that’s the case, then your original wording was materially misleading (either deliberately or inadvertently) because you said the opinions of physicists have “no veracity” in threads like this.

“Zero veracity?” I asked. “Literally none at all?” I was offering you a chance to moderate your claim, even offering an out by suggesting “provisional and defeasible” as an option.

But you didn’t take it, instead confirming, “Yes, zero veracity.” Not some veracity, as you’re now saying, but literally none.

Nevertheless, I chose a different interpretation. Instead of materially misleading, I interpreted the difference between what you said then versus now as you changing your mind or perhaps just your wording—but taking your foot off the accelerator in either case. “There's always the possibility the viewpoint changes,” you admitted yourself. “Evolution of thought does occur. In such cases, the solution is simply to restate one's viewpoint, amending what has previously been posted” (here).

That is the interpretation I chose: Either you changed your mind or amended what you previously said. In either case, I underlined every instance in your recent statement that confirmed my original critique, wherein I said “no veracity” was an overreach—because it was. As you well know, even a broken clock is right twice a day (i.e., sinners can accidentally say true things).

I did not screw up. You said what you said, I confirmed what you said, and my critique was correct—as your new wording confirms.