[Dual1ty]

The second of those statements cannot be proven. Many would say that the fact that the earth is a globe has been proven and yet here we are in the 21st century with some people claiming the reverse.

Yeah, they would say that - but sadly for them it's not true. :'( Being in the 21st century only helps you understand that better. But that's assuming that your true intention is to understand things for what they are.

"The earth is a globe" cannot be proven to the standard you require, and can only be based on evidence. Then clearly the same can be said of "The earth is not a globe".
One could argue that the known distances between places proves that the earth has to be a globe

There's no such thing as "standards of proof" because the proof itself should be the standard. Understand? I don't care how much evidence you think you have because evidence ≠ proof.

I don't care what "one could argue" either, I only care about facts.

I'm not clear what this means. No-one sensible claims that curvature can be discerned from "normal" altitudes, and I include commercial airplane travel in that.

It is clear.

[markjo]

That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that the earth is a globe that doesn't come from NASA or any government agency.  It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to accept any of that evidence.

[Dual1ty]

That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that the earth is a globe that doesn't come from NASA or any government agency.  It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to accept any of that evidence.

So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.

I already looked at all of that evidence. None of it means what you think it means (what you want to believe it means).

[markjo]

So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.

Well, none that you would accept.

I already looked at all of that evidence. None of it means what you think it means (what you want to believe it means).

I don't know about that.  A lot of the evidence makes a lot more sense in an RE context than in an FE context.  For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.

[Pete Svarrior]

For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.

Really? Have you tried the radical approach of asking? This is a pretty basic question, and one that even someone of your sophistication should be able to grasp.

[Dual1ty]

So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.

Well, none that you would accept.

I will accept proof. You got some?

Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.

[markjo]

For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.

Really? Have you tried the radical approach of asking? This is a pretty basic question, and one that even someone of your sophistication should be able to grasp.

I've seen the explanations in previous threads and in the wiki.  My statement stands.  Bendy light just won't cut it until someone comes up with a usable formula.

Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.

Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing.  It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

So, what's your distinction between the two?

[Dual1ty]

Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.

Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing.  It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

So, what's your distinction between the two?

I thought you said there was proof for the globe, but the problem was that I wouldn't accept it? Now that I told you I would accept it, you had to switch the narrative to the mainstream narrative that there's no such thing as scientific proof. Unfortunately for thou, I am more than familiar with that narrative. The only reason it's mainstream nowawdays is because they know they have no proof for the big theories such as the globe, relativity, evolution, virology, etc. Because they're simply not true. So really, the ones saying there's no such thing as scientific proof and that science is all about theories, credibility and consensus are the ones who are not the real scientists.

The biggest misconception in mainstream science is that facts are evidence-dependent and that they can change at any moment as soon as the next batch of contradictory evidence is accepted by the consensus. In other words, they (the mainstream morons) want you to believe that there's no such thing as truth, or that truth is based on consensus. This shows that science is no longer an honest pursuit and that it has been corrupted to the core. Hence, why we got so many so-called scientists who believe in absurdities such as the globe. Meanwhile, the real scientists who know we don't live on an absurdity get marginalized and ridiculed.

The mainstream morons are nothing but a bunch of ZEALOUS BULLIES. You can see that when people such as Mr. Dawkins is hailed as a hero of mainstream science for being a bully vs. creationists, for example. Same thing with people such as deGrasse Tyson being a bully vs. flat-earthers, even though his most famous claims are "that stuff is flat!" and "it's pear-shaped".

Did you know that deGrasse Tyson was scheduled to have a debate with Dubay on JRE but it got cancelled? Yes, that is a fact. I'm not the biggest Dubay fan, but the fact that the mainstream heroes are avoiding scientific debate with certain people should give you a clue that they're all about pushing a narrative, and that those certain people are dangerous to the narrative. Not that science is about debates - the debates are meant for public forums such as the aforementioned JRE, not for scientific research or progress. And not that I'm mad that people like deGrasse Tyson exist either, I actually find him hilarious. But he is a priest, nothing more. Like I said before in one of my other comments, he probably knows that the Earth is flat and is playing a role. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

[Realestfake]

Lol at quoting the “pear shaped” thing
Painfully obviously meant playfully as “a sphere but morphed 0.0001% into a pear shape”.

[Dual1ty]

Lol at quoting the “pear shaped” thing
Painfully obviously meant playfully as “a sphere but morphed 0.0001% into a pear shape”.

That a fact?

[AATW]

Yeah, they would say that - but sadly for them it's not true.

OK. Now all you've got to do is understand that your statement is simply your opinion and one which you have based on evaluating the evidence available to you.

I don't care how much evidence you think you have because evidence ≠ proof.

Correct. And again, now all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Outside of that all we have is evidence, and that's all we can base our opinions on.

I don't care what "one could argue" either, I only care about facts.

Cool. Me too. But establishing what the facts are is the tricky bit. I've given examples of things which people regard as "facts" which are actually incorrect.
But it is a fact that the claimed distances between on earth places cannot be mapped on a flat plane.
That can be proven because now we are back in the world of mathematics, in this case Euclidian geometry.
What is your response to that?

To respond to another of your posts:

The only reason it's mainstream nowawdays is because they know they have no proof for the big theories such as the globe, relativity, evolution, virology, etc. Because they're simply not true.

No scientific theory should be said to be proven in the strictest sense.
They aren't "true" in the strictest sense either, they are simply the best models which fit the current evidence.

The biggest misconception in mainstream science is that facts are evidence-dependent and that they can change at any moment as soon as the next batch of contradictory evidence is accepted by the consensus.

Facts themselves don't change, but what is regarded as factual can of course change. Things which were thought to be true, and therefore declared incorrectly as facts, can be found to be untrue. The ancients believed there were 4 elements, for example. Even when they realised the earth was a globe they believed it was at the centre of the universe and everything went around us. That was taught as a "fact" for centuries before it was found to be incorrect.
Over time models have got better as observations have. Better models make better predictions, that's the test.

In other words, they (the mainstream morons) want you to believe that there's no such thing as truth, or that truth is based on consensus.

Facts are not dependant on evidence, as I've said the truth is independent of belief. But determining what is true is the difficult part.

Hence, why we got so many so-called scientists who believe in absurdities such as the globe. Meanwhile, the real scientists who know we don't live on an absurdity get marginalized and ridiculed.

This is quite a common conspiracy theory tactic. Declare all the experts who are telling you that you're wrong as not real experts. But the ones who are saying what you want to believe - they're the real ones. If you do that you can convince yourself that anything is true.

[Dual1ty]

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

[andiwd]

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

By your own logic of course it isn't. It's evidence. Pretty strong evidence. But maybe something else was going on. You might be incapable of jumping, but just as you bent down Zeus took pity on you and lifted you up in invisibly.

People like you who follow mainstream jumping just don't understood the truth of invisibly Zeus lifting

[Dual1ty]

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

By your own logic of course it isn't. It's evidence. Pretty strong evidence. But maybe something else was going on. You might be incapable of jumping, but just as you bent down Zeus took pity on you and lifted you up in invisibly.

People like you who follow mainstream jumping just don't understood the truth of invisibly Zeus lifting

Absolute clown comment. 🤡

[markjo]

Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.

Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing.  It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

So, what's your distinction between the two?

I thought you said there was proof for the globe, but the problem was that I wouldn't accept it? Now that I told you I would accept it, you had to switch the narrative to the mainstream narrative that there's no such thing as scientific proof.

And I thought that you were going to enlighten me with your explanation of the difference between evidence and proof.

[AATW]

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump?

No. It's evidence.
I mean, I saw Penn and Teller one time and Teller produced a load of coins out of thin air.
That's proof he can create them out of nothing, yes? That's what I saw him do.
Do you see the problem?

You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[Dual1ty]

You have this pattern of deciding that a response is good, and recycling it ad infinitum even if you keep getting absolutely curbstomped over it.

Or, an alternative view is that I don't accept I've been curbstomped over it.
You have a pattern of thinking you're very right about something and getting cross if anyone suggests you're not.

Obviously I accept that there are different levels of proof - when Trump was pwned recently it was on the "preponderance of evidence", because it was a Civil trial. In a criminal trial you need to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt". Then there's mathematical proof which is absolute. But it's this last form that Duality appears to be talking about.
He keeps saying "evidence isn't proof". He's right, but the first two kinds of proof are evidence based. Which leads me to conclude he's talking about absolute proof, which isn't possible in the way he imagines.

Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?

What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.

Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.

Example: There's a bunch of evidence that Sasquatch exists, but there's no proof that Sasquatch exists until someone puts a Sasquatch on the table. Now, obviously I understand the skeptic point of view that: "well, it could be a hyper-realistic doll that looks like a Sasquatch, or something else that we already know about.". That's why we have scientific techniques to determine if it's really a Sasquatch or not.

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump?

No. It's evidence.
I mean, I saw Penn and Teller one time and Teller produced a load of coins out of thin air.
That's proof he can create them out of nothing, yes? That's what I saw him do.
Do you see the problem?

You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.". The answer is, try banging your head against the wall and tell me if the wall (and your head) is an illusion or not.

Pathetic argument that only 20 year-olds brainwashed by solipsism are making. Not ad-hominem, just saying that I only ever hear this argument from 20 year-old snowflakes, and you definitely fit that profile.

[AATW]

Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?
What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.
Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.

I agree that proof is absolute, but people use the word in a fairly loose way - like the way people now use "literally" for emphasis when then don't mean something literally happened.
Or they qualify it like in the court setting where something has to be "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
There is acknowledgement there that this is not absolute proof, and as you've noted this can lead to miscarriages of justice. There was a good example in the press recently when a women who'd spent 20 years in prison in Australia for murdering her 4 children was released when it was found there could have been some genetic condition the kids all had. That created the reasonable doubt.
Which is the exact point. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is held up to be a high standard of "proof", but it can yield incorrect results. The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.

How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.".

That is literally your argument about NASA. "Everything they do is an illusion, it's all fake".
Your logical inconsistency is mind-boggling, dude.

[Dual1ty]

Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?
What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.
Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.

I agree that proof is absolute, but people use the word in a fairly loose way - like the way people now use "literally" for emphasis when then don't mean something literally happened.
Or they qualify it like in the court setting where something has to be "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
There is acknowledgement there that this is not absolute proof, and as you've noted this can lead to miscarriages of justice. There was a good example in the press recently when a women who'd spent 20 years in prison in Australia for murdering her 4 children was released when it was found there could have been some genetic condition the kids all had. That created the reasonable doubt.
Which is the exact point. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is held up to be a high standard of "proof", but it can yield incorrect results. The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.

"Proven beyond reasonable doubt" is a redundancy because proof being absolute means it's beyond reasonable doubt.

The courts rely on evidence, they convict people all the time based on evidence. But scientific facts don't get decided in court, that's one more thing you don't understand.

"The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.". Are you f-ing serious? That's your claim, not mine. If you keep lying like that, I'm going to add you to my ignore list.

How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.".

That is literally your argument about NASA. "Everything they do is an illusion, it's all fake".
Your logical inconsistency is mind-boggling, dude.

Quote me saying those exact words. Another lie. You've been strawmanning with the NASA crap from the beginning, talking about the ISS and things I never mentioned.

CGI is not an illusion, it's CGI. That's not an argument. You're deplorably using the argument that you used in your previous comment where you try to convince people that someone jumping in front of you is not proof that they can jump and flipping it on me disbelieving the CGI that NASA produces - it's not going to work.

The only one being logically inconsistent is you. And it's very obvious that you need to be logically inconsistent because you have nothing but your beliefs and narratives that have nothing to do with scientific fact.

[AATW]

"Proven beyond reasonable doubt" is a redundancy because proof being absolute means it's beyond reasonable doubt.

I know. But that isn't possible, which is why "beyond reasonable doubt" is added as a qualifier.
And as we've seen, that can lead to mistakes.

But scientific facts don't get decided in court

So? They are still based on evidence. And they can change or even be replaced completely as new evidence emerges. That has happened multiple times over history, I have given you examples.

"The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.". Are you f-ing serious? That's your claim, not mine.

Yes it is my claim. And I have provided a source which backs it up.
You seem to be claiming that scientific things have be proven absolutely. I have explained why that isn't true.
It cannot be true, otherwise scientific ideas would never change.

Quote me saying those exact words.

It has been your sentiment. You believe NASA "fake almost everything" - I think those were your exact words.
So you accept things can be faked, it doesn't matter whether that's with a magic trick or using special effects. The end result is the same - the thing you observe is not as it seems. The only difference is the method.