In order to understand OID, let us take a look here for example at this exchange:
We start with DREMT stating the basic facts of the geometry and the factors involved:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
April 26, 2021 at 7:55 pm
“…[W]hen you divide by 4 you are spreading the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earth’s surface. When you divide by 2 you are spreading the incoming solar radiation over only the lit hemisphere. The lit hemisphere has only half the surface area of the entire sphere (obviously). That’s why I’m saying the surface area is being halved. The flux is higher when spread over only a hemisphere than over the entire sphere because the surface area of the hemisphere is half that of the entire sphere.”
Now let’s look at how an OID practitioner, Willard, pretends to take ownership of these facts, but then inverts them such as to deflect away from the meaning and implications of them:
April 26, 2021 at 8:38 pm
“No, the entire Earth’s surface is equal to 1. If you divide the Earth’s surface by 2, you get a hemisphere. If you divide by 4, you get a disc. That’s the geometric point.
So to divide by 2 the way you do is in effect doubling the surface of the Earth’s surface over which is spread incoming solar radiation. If that gets you twice the flux, that means something is wrong with your calculation.”
Look at the first sentence: did it actually say anything different than what DREMT said? Willard says the exact same thing: that if the area of a sphere is 1, then a hemisphere is found by dividing by 2, and a disk is by 4. This is exactly what DREMT just said, but Willard prefaces his re-statement with “No, …”, thus implying that DREMT said something incorrect; and then by re-stating it they thus insert themselves as the owner of the identical statement. You see how that worked?
And so after pretending to refute DREMT’s statement with the preface of “No, …”, but then re-stating the very statement to pretend ownership of the same facts we continue to Willard’s second sentence:
“to divide by 2 double’s the surface area over which is spread incoming solar radiation” – this is the inversion. This takes DREMT’s statement which was then restated by Willard, but now they invert the entire meaning of it, a literal inversion mathematically, where a division by two equates to a doubling, not a halving but a doubling, of the surface area over which sunlight falls.
It then goes to a second layer of inversion where Willard states that a doubling of surface area “gets you twice the flux”, when in fact a doubling of surface area would equate to half the flux, not double the flux.
Willard then ends with “that means something is wrong with your calculation” which is of course the deflection which is merely borne out of the inversion Willard itself created.
So here’s the algorithm:
1) Take ownership of a factual statement from your opponent by a) implying that they didn’t state the fact correctly, then b) re-stating the very same factual statement yourself
2) Invert the statement you just re-stated to pretend that it says the inverse of the very statement itself
3) Use the inversion to deflect interest away from the original and re-stated statement
Guys, WITH are we dealing with here? I mean – what in the good f have we encountered here?!
Do you guys want to know what Willard’s email (sans domain) is? This is what it is apparently, as they enter it to comment: “languageisasocialart@….”
“Language is a social art”, hey lil’ Squirt Willis? Is that what you’re doing here with this insane OID algorithm, is social art?