In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena.This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.
I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanationsIf you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory. Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.
Perhaps then we might start to take you seriously.I doubt it. Experience has shown that round-earthers almost never change their beliefs when presented with facts. They take the dogma from their scientists like a religious zealot and cling to it hard as they can.
I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanationsIf you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory.
Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.
I moved this from Suggestions and Concerns because that forum is really more for site improvement rather than debating semantics.
This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.
This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.
*ahem* I don't want to completely derail this thread, but this just isn't true. Here is one example of an observation that contradicts the flat earth "theory". (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.msg98527#msg98527) There are many more examples if you are curious.
Examples of enlarged headlights were provided in that thread.
Then evolution isn't a theory, it's just a hunch. But mainstream science doesn't give a damn as long as it fits their narrative.
Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
Then evolution isn't a theory, it's just a hunch. But mainstream science doesn't give a damn as long as it fits their narrative.
Don't even go there Truthy, you got pawned on your own thread with this shit, anyway I thought you were quitting. (Well I would but my ego won't let me)
Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.
Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
No, that's not what I meant.
In this context, by "useful", I mean "useful for determining which theory is correct". If both theories predict that the hammer will fall, then that prediction is useless for determining which theory is correct. The useful predictions are those that differ from the other theory. We can use the different predictions to test which theory is correct.
I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanationsIf you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory.
I agree, String Theory should be called a hypothesis.
Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?
Different fields of study have different definitions of theory. String theory is a theory in the mathematical sense: an internally consistent set of rules. Whether or not it represents reality is up for debate.
Keep in mind, as far as I know, there isn't any governing body that determines what gets labelled a theory and what doesn't. It's more a matter of consensus within the respective field. It can be inconsistent.
Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.
Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
No, that's not what I meant.
In this context, by "useful", I mean "useful for determining which theory is correct". If both theories predict that the hammer will fall, then that prediction is useless for determining which theory is correct. The useful predictions are those that differ from the other theory. We can use the different predictions to test which theory is correct.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.
Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
No, that's not what I meant.
In this context, by "useful", I mean "useful for determining which theory is correct". If both theories predict that the hammer will fall, then that prediction is useless for determining which theory is correct. The useful predictions are those that differ from the other theory. We can use the different predictions to test which theory is correct.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.
Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.
Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?
That you have trust issues with the authority that made these observations publicly available to begin with doesn't change that
You know what, I agree with you and your entire essay. It might be that my English is bad (Or that I'm lazy, usually browse on my phone), but I remember someone here had a signature that said something along the lines of "It's incredible that you need to write 6000 words essays to remove all ambiguity".Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.
No, I did not forget, I neglected to quote it. However, if you insist, I'll address that disparate comment at the end.
This is for Andruszkow and Rama Set (Who should really know better. I can forgive this noob, but you disappoint me, Rama):Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?
One need look no further than this very post to see what constitutes a "theory." Venus laid it out quote nicely when she said, "In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena." This is what constitutes a theory and I say that flat-earth meets these requirements. However, that's beside the point. I'm here to shred your argument, Andruszkow.
In science, being observable doesn't graduate something from a theory to a fact. As Venus points out, a theory is an explanation of observations. The theory of evolution is undeniably true, but it will never (correctly) be called "the fact of evolution" because it's an explanation for a set of observations.
By definition, round-earth theory is a theory. Even if it was conclusively demonstrated to everyone in the world, it would still be called round-earth theory because (say it with me now) it's an explanation for a set of observations.
So in this light, saying, "...round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact," is mind-boggling. It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's a statement so deeply flawed of that it betrays a strong degree of ignorance to the use of scientific terms.That you have trust issues with the authority that made these observations publicly available to begin with doesn't change that
To address your second non sequitur ad hominem... Well I sort of just did. But because you seem to think it's a valid argument I suppose I'll explain why it's a non sequitur ad hominem.
Non sequitur: This does not logically track. Me having trust issues with the source data does not make the source data valid. Nor does it in any way lend credibility to the source data. Restated, it reads, "Because I have trust issues with the data, it does not change that flat-earth theory is a fact." It's a conclusion (round-earth is a fact) that does not follow it's premise (I have trust issues). My level of trust does not effect the validity of the data.
Ad hominem: You are attacking me, not the argument. The notion that I have trust issues with the source data does not mean that the source data is valid or invalid and it certainly does not mean that the world is round or flat.
And reasons why that explanation is quite invalid were also given, which you seem to have ignored.This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.
*ahem* I don't want to completely derail this thread, but this just isn't true. Here is one example of an observation that contradicts the flat earth "theory". (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.msg98527#msg98527) There are many more examples if you are curious.
Examples of enlarged headlights were provided in that thread.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.
In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena.This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanationsIf you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory. Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.Perhaps then we might start to take you seriously.I doubt it. Experience has shown that round-earthers almost never change their beliefs when presented with facts. They take the dogma from their scientists like a religious zealot and cling to it hard as they can.
Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.
Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
No, that's not what I meant.
In this context, by "useful", I mean "useful for determining which theory is correct". If both theories predict that the hammer will fall, then that prediction is useless for determining which theory is correct. The useful predictions are those that differ from the other theory. We can use the different predictions to test which theory is correct.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.
Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.
No, I did not forget, I neglected to quote it. However, if you insist, I'll address that disparate comment at the end.
This is for Andruszkow and Rama Set (Who should really know better. I can forgive this noob, but you disappoint me, Rama):Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?
One need look no further than this very post to see what constitutes a "theory." Venus laid it out quote nicely when she said, "In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena." This is what constitutes a theory and I say that flat-earth meets these requirements. However, that's beside the point. I'm here to shred your argument, Andruszkow.
In science, being observable doesn't graduate something from a theory to a fact. As Venus points out, a theory is an explanation of observations. The theory of evolution is undeniably true, but it will never (correctly) be called "the fact of evolution" because it's an explanation for a set of observations.
By definition, round-earth theory is a theory. Even if it was conclusively demonstrated to everyone in the world, it would still be called round-earth theory because (say it with me now) it's an explanation for a set of observations.
So in this light, saying, "...round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact," is mind-boggling. It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's a statement so deeply flawed of that it betrays a strong degree of ignorance to the use of scientific terms.That you have trust issues with the authority that made these observations publicly available to begin with doesn't change that
To address your second non sequitur ad hominem... Well I sort of just did. But because you seem to think it's a valid argument I suppose I'll explain why it's a non sequitur ad hominem.
Non sequitur: This does not logically track. Me having trust issues with the source data does not make the source data valid. Nor does it in any way lend credibility to the source data. Restated, it reads, "Because I have trust issues with the data, it does not change that flat-earth theory is a fact." It's a conclusion (round-earth is a fact) that does not follow it's premise (I have trust issues). My level of trust does not effect the validity of the data.
Ad hominem: You are attacking me, not the argument. The notion that I have trust issues with the source data does not mean that the source data is valid or invalid and it certainly does not mean that the world is round or flat.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.
I seem out of step here (being morning in a different time zone to most), but I am curious as to your staement "I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions."
Just what predictions can the "Flat Earth Model" make, that might be different from the heliocentric globe?
I don't believe I have seen any.
In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena.This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanationsIf you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory. Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.Perhaps then we might start to take you seriously.I doubt it. Experience has shown that round-earthers almost never change their beliefs when presented with facts. They take the dogma from their scientists like a religious zealot and cling to it hard as they can.