Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2017, 08:45:12 PM »
Has Astronomy ever been anything more than the fixation on a star and counting how many times it blinks? I'm not totally sure we have anything much better than the Ancients had as far as accomplishing that.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 379
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2017, 10:04:23 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5821
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2017, 10:46:33 PM »
My post was about the value of two plus two.
Perhaps you should consider staying on topic, then?
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 379
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2017, 03:17:36 AM »
My post was about the value of two plus two.
staying on topic
Yes. Thanks.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2017, 10:45:54 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 379
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2017, 11:00:18 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

Sure. But that entirely evades the point as I'm sure you know.

According to the "same old proofs" when you have two objects and you add two more you will have four objects. We've all been duped into believing this since grade school. If we would start using some different proofs we would realize that two objects plus two more objects does not equal four objects.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2017, 03:16:49 PM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 379
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2017, 04:29:22 PM »
Your source showed how two plus two didn't always equal four depending on how the numbers were used. That is why, in the following post I specified.

So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5821
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2017, 08:33:44 PM »
So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
No. For that analogy to work, you'd have to redefine a globe to mean something else than what you currently mean.

That said, if you did accept that condition, then sure, the Earth could be a "globe".
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 379
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2017, 03:25:10 AM »
So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
No. For that analogy to work, you'd have to redefine a globe to mean something else than what you currently mean.

That said, if you did accept that condition, then sure, the Earth could be a "globe".

But he's saying that 2+2 can equal four (globe earth) but that it can also equal something else (flat earth) depending on how you use the numbers. To rule out the globe earth you must also rule out 4 as a possible correct answer to 2+2.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 379
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2017, 06:12:35 AM »
I saw a similar conversation regarding math on the other site so I pasted a post from this tread over there. For interest sake, I thought I would post Alien's response ( I don't know if I'm breaking any rules but if so I apologize in advance):

1+1=2


now go ahead and declare it to be refutable.

Enter Tom Bishop:
The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

tim bishop is also wrong. 2+2 will always equal 4 and never vary. A different measuring scale eg a different base will still come up with 4 and only the symbol for 4 will vary. It remains an axiomatic truth that does not vary. Even if a society does not use integers (not that any actually do) the axiom is still 2.0+2.0=4.0

One rather obvious feature of FEers is to try and convince people that objective truth ie axioms, do not exist while they remain the foundations of pretty much everything.  The existence of a force that holds us to the ground is axiomatic - unless you are a FEer who create a variety of alternate mechanisms trying to avoid any possible existence of a force.

I think some People gran FEers far too much leniency in their baseless abrogation of basic scientific and social principles.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 06:15:00 AM by Boots »
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2017, 04:35:04 PM »
"AlienHunter" clearly did not understand the link. A proof like 10 + 10 = 20 is not valid in all situations. It is highly dependant on underlying assumptions of the model involved. It is not a universal proof that 20 is twice as much as 10.

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

Quote
The change in heat between 0oC and 10oC is the same as between 10oC and 20oC. But watch out! 20oC is not twice as hot as 10oC! Why? Interval scales have arbitrary zeros (just because we decided to call it zero).