The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Gulliver on August 10, 2014, 10:37:37 PM

Title: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 10, 2014, 10:37:37 PM
See #7 here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/58254/13-scientific-terms-you-might-be-using-wrong (http://mentalfloss.com/article/58254/13-scientific-terms-you-might-be-using-wrong).

Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?
Title: Re: What doe FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: fappenhosen on August 10, 2014, 10:43:36 PM
Gravity is just a theory. You can't point at some gravity.
Title: Re: What doe FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 10, 2014, 10:54:59 PM
Gravity is just a theory. You can't point at some gravity.
Why do you say that gravity is just theory? Don't we have Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to predict how an object will fall? See: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law (http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law)?

Why would I need to "point at some" for there to be a law?
Title: Re: What doe FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Thork on August 11, 2014, 12:12:13 AM
Evolution is a theory. Its called the theory of evolution. I'm sure you'd go blue in the face convincing people that evolution is fact, but its called a theory as it is not conclusive. The big bang is another theory. Its called the big bang theory. Again, its not proven. Its basically when scientists run out of answers and place their trust in a faith based idea. Normal people would call this religion. But scientists think they are above this and call these ideas 'theory'. Its basically what you believe, without being able to prove it to an idiot on the internet who will complain about ad hominums and logical fallacies and all that other boring crap that 'science' experts spout when they don't like an idea but don't actually have anything to back up their objections.
Title: Re: What doe FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 01:08:03 AM
Evolution is a theory. Its called the theory of evolution. I'm sure you'd go blue in the face convincing people that evolution is fact, but its called a theory as it is not conclusive. The big bang is another theory. Its called the big bang theory. Again, its not proven. Its basically when scientists run out of answers and place their trust in a faith based idea. Normal people would call this religion. But scientists think they are above this and call these ideas 'theory'. Its basically what you believe, without being able to prove it to an idiot on the internet who will complain about ad hominums and logical fallacies and all that other boring crap that 'science' experts spout when they don't like an idea but don't actually have anything to back up their objections.
So you can't answer my simple question--just as I expected. When does Science have proof? Science can prove something false, as it does to FET. For example you provided a link to a day's video from the ISS that proves FET false. (Thanks again for that.) Science can never "prove" something true. Only your method,  the zetetic method, without any use of hypothesis, makes claims beyond the reach of contradiction (EnaG, p. 5).
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 03:05:36 AM
Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 03:07:26 AM
Evolution is a theory. Its called the theory of evolution. I'm sure you'd go blue in the face convincing people that evolution is fact, but its called a theory as it is not conclusive. The big bang is another theory. Its called the big bang theory. Again, its not proven. Its basically when scientists run out of answers and place their trust in a faith based idea. Normal people would call this religion. But scientists think they are above this and call these ideas 'theory'. Its basically what you believe, without being able to prove it to an idiot on the internet who will complain about ad hominums and logical fallacies and all that other boring crap that 'science' experts spout when they don't like an idea but don't actually have anything to back up their objections.

Something that is 99.9999% sure is not conclusive but it's as close as you can get often due to mechanical limitations. This is what you are dealing with with gravity and evolution. You are mistaking the humble admission that nothing is certain with an admission of ignorance. They are not equivalent.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 03:10:22 AM
Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.


That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 03:36:13 AM
Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.


That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.
Well said. Keep up the good work.

@Thork and Vx: Science is fine with "everything" could be wrong. Rowbotham and the other zetetics though insist that their conclusions are beyond contradiction. Whether something could be wrong does not make it a theory. Science considers everything open to review, revision, and reconsideration. That's a philosophy Rowbotham and the rest of the zetetics would do well to embrace.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 04:25:19 AM
Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.


That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.
Well said. Keep up the good work.

@Thork and Vx: Science is fine with "everything" could be wrong. Rowbotham and the other zetetics though insist that their conclusions are beyond contradiction. Whether something could be wrong does not make it a theory. Science considers everything open to review, revision, and reconsideration. That's a philosophy Rowbotham and the rest of the zetetics would do well to embrace.

I should add that Einstein's GR is also a law.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 07:48:53 AM
I should add that Einstein's GR is also a law.
I'm glad you brought that up. GR mixes with FET rather poorly.

FEers elected to solve their problem with standard gravity pulling everything toward the North Pole by postulating the Universal Accelerator, requiring GR. I suspect the secondary reason for the UA was just to be able to bully noobs about the odd vector addition of SR.

The UA creates two insurmountable problems for FET though. First, without RET, there's no evidence to support (or even to require) GR.  Mercury’s orbital precession around the Sun does not exist in FET. Second, the UA requires such large energies (over a centillion joules!) to maintain the acceleration that the FE would have long ago boiled away into plasma based on thermodynamics.

Here's a recent article that explains some of this along with an answer to Tom Bishop's whining about dark matter and dark energy in RET: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-49-do-the-cosmic-unknowns-cast-doubt-on-the-big-bang-654f3f9e63a9 (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-49-do-the-cosmic-unknowns-cast-doubt-on-the-big-bang-654f3f9e63a9).
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 08:50:24 AM
The term "conspiracy theory" exists in its own right in the English language (quite separately from "theory" at this point) and is not a scientific term in any way, shape or form. It does not rely on the scientific meaning of "theory", but rather the colloquial one. Your omission of that fact makes your question somewhat misleading. After all, it doesn't make you "wrong" to correctly identify a butterfly, even if it's not a flying piece of butter, or a fly made of butter, or even an insect that's buttery in colour.

This may be of help:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/conspiracy-theory
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/theory (note that the scientific use is distinguished, but not the sole accepted use)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theory (as above, but also see 1.2)

It is very important to keep in mind that language serves a certain purpose, and that is to facilitate efficient communication. Some words gain very specific meanings (for example "rape", which originally meant "to seize by force" but also "to hasten", is unlikely to be used to mean anything other than forced sexual intercourse), while others become somewhat more general (for example the noun "lock", which used to refer only to a mechanism or enclosure, but has since been extended to include more abstract things like mutexes). Some words may have different meanings depending on which context they're used in ("theory" is a great example here. In theory, it should be clear what is meant by "conspiracy theory", but in practice you chose to misunderstand it).

In other words, no, we're not misusing a scientific term. We're not trying to use a scientific term to begin with, because "conspiracy theory" is not one. Importantly, however, it's a term that's been acknowledged by researchers worldwide (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=conspiracy+theory), and a term whose meaning is generally not seen as ambiguous, as long as the context in which the words were used is known.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Thork on August 11, 2014, 08:57:16 AM
Some words gain very specific meanings (for example "rape", which originally meant "to seize by force" but also "to hasten", is unlikely to be used to mean anything other than forced sexual intercourse

(http://www.parker-ward.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/rape-field_600.png)
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 09:34:12 AM
I stand by my statement. While it's possible that someone may refer to rapeseed as rape, it's overall unlikely. Also:

Some words may have different meanings depending on which context they're used in

But sure, I should have specified that I was talking about the verb "to rape". Have a pat on the back.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 09:59:01 AM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: jroa on August 11, 2014, 10:09:32 AM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Thork on August 11, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?
What a dummy.

I stand by my statement. While it's possible that someone may refer to rapeseed as rape, it's overall unlikely. Also:

Some words may have different meanings depending on which context they're used in

But sure, I should have specified that I was talking about the verb "to rape". Have a pat on the back.
If you hadn't used the word 'rape' I probably would have ignored anyway. You are always thinking about rape. Don't be rapey, PP. No one likes a rapist.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 10:43:20 AM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
So FEers don't use the word as the referenced article suggests they should. Thanks. I always suspected that FEers left Science out of FET, given its inherent reliance on its conspiracy theory. Now I have confirmation.

Quote from: http://mentalfloss.com/article/58254/13-scientific-terms-you-might-be-using-wrong
According to AMNH’s website, “A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true.”
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 03:25:09 PM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?
You don't need to repeat it, you need to make it coherent. As it stands, your question, combined with the premises you present, introduces a contradiction. If you really want to beg the question, be my guest, but I wouldn't expect anyone here entertaining it for too long.

After all, a hot dog isn't a dog at all. I knew those NYC vendors left biology out of their trade, those ignorant bastards, them.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 03:55:23 PM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?
You don't need to repeat it, you need to make it coherent. As it stands, your question, combined with the premises you present, introduces a contradiction. If you really want to beg the question, be my guest, but I wouldn't expect anyone here entertaining it for too long.

After all, a hot dog isn't a dog at all. I knew those NYC vendors left biology out of their trade, those ignorant bastards, them.

In this thread Thork implied that the definition of the word "theory" used in conjunction with evolution is:

Evolution is a theory. Its called the theory of evolution. I'm sure you'd go blue in the face convincing people that evolution is fact, but its called a theory as it is not conclusive.

But this is clearly an equivocation of the context as intended.  This equivocation of the word "theory" is common, mostly among Creationists, when speaking of evolution.

Rather than ask which one certain people use and dont use, I find it to be more useful to ask that people do not equivocate on the word.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?
You don't need to repeat it, you need to make it coherent. As it stands, your question, combined with the premises you present, introduces a contradiction. If you really want to beg the question, be my guest, but I wouldn't expect anyone here entertaining it for too long.

After all, a hot dog isn't a dog at all. I knew those NYC vendors left biology out of their trade, those ignorant bastards, them.
Please do tell me the contradiction I introduced. I asked "What do FEers mean by "theory". I did get an answer from jrpa. Is he wrong?
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 04:23:16 PM
I asked "What do FEers mean by "theory".
And then rambled on about "conspiracy theory", which is defined separately in English. That is a problem. You're not asking what we mean by "theory", you're asking what we mean by "conspiracy theory" and then using it as if it said anything about other contexts in which "theory" may be used by FE'ers.

I did get an answer from jroa. Is he wrong?
Within the context of "conspiracy theory", he is correct. Your failure to acknowledge the context is very apparent in your responses. Because you keep acting like there can only be one meaning of "theory", your question is incoherent. Once you fixed that, you might get an answer of actual value. Until then, all you can do is play with fallacies along the lines of:

After all, a hot dog isn't a dog at all. I knew those NYC vendors left biology out of their trade, those ignorant bastards, them.

Rather than ask which one certain people use and dont use, I find it to be more useful to ask that people do not equivocate on the word.
Fair enough, but I don't think any of us are going to waste our time introducing a better alternative to the well-understood and commonly-accepted "conspiracy theory". We're already too busy opposing the mainstream about the shape of the Earth, inventing new language constructs (beyond absolute necessity) would be pushing it too far.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 04:41:13 PM
I asked "What do FEers mean by "theory".
And then rambled on about "conspiracy theory", which is defined separately in English. That is a problem. You're not asking what we mean by "theory", you're asking what we mean by "conspiracy theory" and then using it as if it said anything about other contexts in which "theory" may be used by FE'ers.
SO you can't point to a contradiction, as I expected.

Where did I ramble on about "conspiracy theory"? Where did I even ask what FEer mean by "conspiracy theory"? Surely FE's conspiracy is an inherent part of FET. It's a great example that shows FET is not a scientific theory (as the article describes). That "theory" appears in the phrase "conspiracy theory" does not introduce a contradiction.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 04:55:47 PM
Fair enough, but I don't think any of us are going to waste our time introducing a better alternative to the well-understood and commonly-accepted "conspiracy theory". We're already too busy opposing the mainstream about the shape of the Earth, inventing new language constructs (beyond absolute necessity) would be pushing it too far.

Agreed.  It is pretty pedantic to harp on the contextual definition of theory in the case of "conspiracy theory".
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 05:05:32 PM
Agreed.  It is pretty pedantic to harp on the contextual definition of theory in the case of "conspiracy theory".
It's not just pedantic. It's an active attempt to inhibit the communicative power (and the very purpose) of language.

Please do tell me the contradiction I introduced.
Premise 1: A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory. (from dictionary definitions of the two terms)
Premise 2: A conspiracy theory is presumed to be a subset of theories. (introduced by yourself)
Premise 3: All theories are scientific theories. (introduced by yourself and the blog post you linked to)

It is my assumption that your understanding of elementary set theory will help you finish the thought process, but let me know if you need help.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 05:21:14 PM

Please do tell me the contradiction I introduced.
Premise 1: A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory. (from dictionary definitions of the two terms)
Premise 2: A conspiracy theory is presumed to be a subset of theories. (introduced by yourself)
Premise 3: All theories are scientific theories. (introduced by yourself and the blog post you linked to)

It is my assumption that your understanding of elementary set theory will help you finish the thought process, but let me know if you need help.
Thanks for the offer. Yes, I need help. Where did I contend Premise 1, 2 and 3? Please do quote me. Indeed the reference states quite the opposite of what you contend: "When most people use the word theory, they're talking about a hunch or guess."

I suspect that for Premise 2, you're making a generalization error. I do content that FET's conspiracy is inherent.

For Premise 3, I specifically asked for FEers' position of their use of the word "theory", again quite the opposition of your contention.

The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Shmeggley on August 11, 2014, 05:37:58 PM
Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.


That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.
Well said. Keep up the good work.

@Thork and Vx: Science is fine with "everything" could be wrong. Rowbotham and the other zetetics though insist that their conclusions are beyond contradiction. Whether something could be wrong does not make it a theory. Science considers everything open to review, revision, and reconsideration. That's a philosophy Rowbotham and the rest of the zetetics would do well to embrace.

Exactly. "Everything you know could be wrong" is just empty rhetoric. Show me how what I know is wrong, and provide a better explanation. Anything less is just smug pseudoscientific posturing.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 05:46:23 PM
You didn't contend Premise 1. Premise 1 exists outside of your claims, and is the only premise in the mix that holds some legitimacy. You could know that if you had bothered reading my post, as I already explained where it comes from.

Premise 2 comes directly from your claims. You first ask:
Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?

to then conclude from the answer that:
So FEers don't use the word as the referenced article suggests they should.

You assume that "theory" and "conspiracy theory" intrinsically share the same context. Since you tried describing the latter in terms of the former, you contended that you'd like to interpret it as a subset. Premise 2 stated.

Premise 3 comes directly from the post linked in the OP, which claims that other uses of the term "theory" are "wrong".

The fact that you keep mixing your questions up and blending the contexts together works against your claims here, not for them. Do try to keep up.

The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists in the context of "conspiracy theory".
Fixed for coherence. But even then, you're still wrong. I've already demonstrated that "conspiracy theory" is used in exactly the same fashion by FE'ers as other scientists, by way of providing you with a long list of papers that use that term in the same meaning.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 05:56:34 PM
You didn't contend Premise 1. Premise 1 exists outside of your claims, and is the only premise in the mix that holds some legitimacy. You could know that if you had bothered reading my post, as I already explained where it comes from.

Premise 2 comes directly from your claims. You first ask:
Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?

to then conclude from the answer that:
So FEers don't use the word as the referenced article suggests they should.

You assume that "theory" and "conspiracy theory" intrinsically share the same context. Since you tried describing the latter in terms of the former, you contended that you'd like to interpret it as a subset. Premise 2 stated.

Premise 3 comes directly from the post linked in the OP, which claims that other uses of the term "theory" are "wrong".

The fact that you keep mixing your questions up and blending the contexts together works against your claims here, not for them. Do try to keep up.

The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists in the context of "conspiracy theory".
Fixed for coherence. But even then, you're still wrong. I've already demonstrated that "conspiracy theory" is used in exactly the same fashion by FE'ers as other scientists, by way of providing you with a long list of papers that use that term in the same meaning.
Let me just make a couple of observations.
1) Asking a question is not introducing a contradiction.
2) I do not agree with your selection of the definition in Premise 1.
3) jroa did not set the context of "conspiracy theory". Indeed his reference is to just "theory".
4) If FET includes a conspiracy, then it is not, accordingly to the Mental Floss article, a theory as a scientist would use the term. I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy. If you need help understanding the article's point about the requirement that a theory be testable, let me know. If you believe that FET's conspiracy is testable, then please list a test that FEers could run that would show that there is no conspiracy.
5) Summarizing another post is not introducing a contradiction. The other poster introduced the point. Do keep up.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 06:03:57 PM
1) Asking a question is not introducing a contradiction.
Not intrinsically, no. You both asked a question and introduced a contradiction - the two were only loosely related. Your fallacy here is very similar to the original one, go figure.

2) I do not agree with your selection of the definition in Premise 1.
Yes, the fact that you disagree with lexicographers is a large part of the problem here. We also already commented on that. Please see:

Agreed.  It is pretty pedantic to harp on the contextual definition of theory in the case of "conspiracy theory".
It's not just pedantic. It's an active attempt to inhibit the communicative power (and the very purpose) of language.

3) jroa did not set the context of "conspiracy theory".
He didn't need to, you already set the context in the OP.

I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.

5) Summarizing another post is not introducing a contradiction.
Correct. In line with your previous mistakes, you both (incorrectly) summarised a post and introduced a contradiction, but for some reason you now try to create a false dichotomy between those events. The connection between the two was there, but it wasn't essential to your issue.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 06:15:08 PM
I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.


Okay:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179)
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 06:16:55 PM
Okay:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179)
You're doing this again? Remember when you couldn't stop rambling about how I "claimed" there were two Australias? I hope that this is just an act and that humour really isn't lost on you that often.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 06:59:32 PM
Okay:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179)
You're doing this again? Remember when you couldn't stop rambling about how I "claimed" there were two Australias? I hope that this is just an act and that humour really isn't lost on you that often.
So you want to dodge your post claiming "humor". How droll. Fortunately, the Wiki serves just fine here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy)
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 07:30:14 PM
So you want to dodge your post claiming "humor". How droll.
No,  I claimed humour. I also signposted it quite clearly in the very post you referenced, long before there was anything to "dodge".

Fortunately, the Wiki serves just fine here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy)
Where in that Wiki page do I personally state that a conspiracy theory is part of FET?
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 07:51:03 PM
So you want to dodge your post claiming "humor". How droll.
No,  I claimed humour. I also signposted it quite clearly in the very post you referenced, long before there was anything to "dodge".

Fortunately, the Wiki serves just fine here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy)
Where in that Wiki page do I personally state that a conspiracy theory is part of FET?
I assail FET for inherently including the Conspiracy and thereby falling outside of Science. Your personal statements are irrelevant.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 08:24:08 PM
Your personal statements are irrelevant.
They are quite relevant to the claim you made, and to the request you claim to be fulfilling.

I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.


Okay [...]

Why are you finding it so difficult to remain consistent with yourself? Are there multiple people using your account, not fully aware of one another's actions?
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 08:31:20 PM
Your personal statements are irrelevant.
They are quite relevant to the claim you made, and to the request you claim to be fulfilling.

I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.


Okay [...]

Why are you finding it so difficult to remain consistent with yourself? Are there multiple people using your account, not fully aware of one another's actions?
I see no need to allow your alleged "signposting" with the comparative "more serious" vice "serious" to further derail the thread. My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.

Please feel free to pat yourself on the back over your use of the humor defense.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 08:35:59 PM
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 09:01:53 PM
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
I'll accept "FET is not science". Thanks.

Why would anyone argue that there is "something that's" sufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth? Are you claiming that you have that something? Have your read Godel's works on the topic?

ETF: PP's wish to avoid objective science and truth.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2014, 09:21:48 PM
Once again you insist on applying inappropriate contexts. I am not talking about an "objective" Truth as in, say, arguments derived from mathematical Platonism. I'm talking about the truth (note the lower-case spelling, which you erroneously tried to correct) as it is used in common parlance.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 11, 2014, 10:04:01 PM
Once again you insist on applying inappropriate contexts. I am not talking about an "objective" Truth as in, say, arguments derived from mathematical Platonism. I'm talking about the truth (note the lower-case spelling, which you erroneously tried to correct) as it is used in common parlance.
Okay, I fixed that issue. Now can you answer the question or do you need to find another reason to dodge?

Also how does FET explain the photos testimonies of the round Earth from space without a conspiracy?
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2014, 08:12:14 AM
Okay, I fixed that issue.
You did? Where? So far all you've been doing is furthering the issue; and you continue doing so by adding more disjoint things into the mix. You cocked it up even more by talking about "objective science and truth".

Gödel correctly distinguishes between synthetic and analytic propositions, but I don't see why you think that would affect epistemology.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 12, 2014, 12:39:19 PM
Okay, I fixed that issue.
You did? Where? So far all you've been doing is furthering the issue; and you continue doing so by adding more disjoint things into the mix. You cocked it up even more by talking about "objective science and truth".

Gödel correctly distinguishes between synthetic and analytic propositions, but I don't see why you think that would affect epistemology.
So just more dodging as I expected.

Oh, and here:
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
I'll accept "FET is not science". Thanks.

Why would anyone argue that there is "something that's" sufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth? Are you claiming that you have that something? Have your read Godel's works on the topic?

ETF: PP's wish to avoid objective science and truth.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2014, 01:04:11 PM
Oh, and here: <quote follows>
Right. Well, I encourage you to read my response.

So far all you've been doing is furthering the issue; and you continue doing so by adding more disjoint things into the mix. You cocked it up even more by talking about "objective science and truth".

See, the issue here is that you're unable to ask a coherent question and, when that's pointed out to you, instead of finally fixing it, you either make it worse or get pretentious about others "dodging" your questions. In fact, you alternate between the two.

C'mon CT, I believe in you. You can do it. You can break the mould. Ask a coherent question, one that doesn't introduce more fallacies to your melting pot.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 12, 2014, 02:05:38 PM
So. still no answer. I expected as much.

Also how does FET explain the photos testimonies of the round Earth from space without a conspiracy?

Why would anyone argue that there is "something that's" sufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth? Are you claiming that you have that something? Have your read Godel's works on the topic?
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2014, 02:10:18 PM
So. still no answer. I expected as much.
Indeed. Until you make your questions coherent, they cannot be answered from a pragmatic standpoint. That you expected this and did nothing to prevent it is a testament to your intellectual dishonesty, and not something to be proud about.

You restating over and over that the unanswerable hasn't been answered for you yet is perfectly fine by me, but I have to wonder why you'd do something so pointless and unrewarding.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 12, 2014, 03:53:18 PM
So. still no answer. I expected as much.
Indeed. Until you make your questions coherent, they cannot be answered from a pragmatic standpoint. That you expected this and did nothing to prevent it is a testament to your intellectual dishonesty, and not something to be proud about.

You restating over and over that the unanswerable hasn't been answered for you yet is perfectly fine by me, but I have to wonder why you'd do something so pointless and unrewarding.
Yes, all you do is dodge. Even the worst of questions can give the wise an avenue to explain his position. Oh well, I expected nothing more from you.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2014, 04:53:39 PM
Well, it would seem we've hit the stopping point, then. You're not willing to ask a coherent question, and I can do nothing but point out the incoherence of incoherent questions, which you're not willing to accept. Instead, you keep talking about your self-proclaimed prophetic powers, which so far have enabled you to predict the obvious.

If you ever change your mind, do feel free to ask coherent questions, but until then, I shall consider this matter concluded, and my points conceded.
Title: Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
Post by: Gulliver on August 12, 2014, 05:32:08 PM
Well, it would seem we've hit the stopping point, then. You're not willing to ask a coherent question, and I can do nothing but point out the incoherence of incoherent questions, which you're not willing to accept. Instead, you keep talking about your self-proclaimed prophetic powers, which so far have enabled you to predict the obvious.

If you ever change your mind, do feel free to ask coherent questions, but until then, I shall consider this matter concluded, and my points conceded.
I do agree with you that FET is not science. That's enough truth for one thread. Thanks.