Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pongo

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 06:20:06 PM »
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.

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:58:58 PM »
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.

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:19:20 PM »
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.

44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 02:14:51 PM »
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" explanations
If 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.

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 02:07:16 PM »
I moved this from Suggestions and Concerns because that forum is really more for site improvement rather than debating semantics.

47
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: June 06, 2016, 03:14:18 PM »
Yeah, but we're supposed to know that Arya is also a pretty badass almost Faceless Man. If they could kill her as easily as anyone else then all that training would have been absolutely worthless.

I think all the training is already absolutely worthless. She seemed to learn nothing from them. Maybe a little bit of stick-fighting, but surely not nearly as good as the Waif. Everything she learned could have been attributed to what Syrio or the Hound taught her. She didn't learn how to change faces or anything supernatural, at best she picked up a bit more combat skills? Worthless, I say!

48
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: June 03, 2016, 03:58:06 PM »
Thork, they are fucking with you. You can’t wing this with a few names, this is an immersive obsession, she will have all sorts of theories about who is related to whom and how it’s going to end. You will mutter something about dragons and she will ask you which family do you think the guy the wood nymphs staked to the crying tree to make the white walkers, hails from, or if you think the Stark Dire wolves should have all been called Kenny and your muteness coupled with the panic in your eyes will mark you as a pretender to Westeros law.

Now I’m guessing this woman has a sense of humour, but this will not come over as anything other than desperation, she will start to notice things, the faint stains on your jacket the cheapness of your shoes and the masturbation calluses and you will last as long as Gared did.

Or, she'll find it cute and endearing that he tried to learn about something that she's interested in. Fuck off Jura, have you even seen Game of Thrones?

49
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: June 03, 2016, 01:21:35 PM »
I have a problem. This program is to blame.

I like a girl, she's really nice. But she is obsessed with this Game of Thrones shit. How do I maintain her interest and spark conversation without having to watch this crap? Do they do like summaries I can read to get up to speed so I can pretend I like it, or are there any go to phrases I can borrow like "Did you see the one where the dragon did that thing to the other thing? Man, some episode huh?" That kind of stuff.

Okay, simply learn these few names:

Cersei (sir-sea)
John Snow
Jorah Mormont

And then slot any name into any of these sentences:
"I think that <name> is going to die soon."
"I particularly liked seeing <name> naked."
"<name> will defiantly be riding a dragon by the end of the show."

If you want to bring up specifics, ask about one of the following events:
The Red Wedding -- bad/sad
Hodor's (hoe-door) death -- topical
Joffrey Baratheon's assassination -- good

With these few phrases and topics you can totes trick the clothes off any woman and hump a baby into her.

50
At this point, we are just gauging interest. Many of Thork's doomsday scenarios will simply not be applicable. However, others may. If we feel a high enough level of interest is achieved, we will see if we can work out a deal.

51
What does this picture mean?


Looks to me like someone is shining a bright spotlight behind a row of trees.

52
Technology & Information / Re: Thork is getting a Swiss watch
« on: May 23, 2016, 04:09:28 PM »
I'm just saying, it's not displaying 10:10. They showed their unbridled commitment to being rebels. Damn impressive.

53
Technology & Information / Re: Thork is getting a Swiss watch
« on: May 23, 2016, 01:43:31 PM »


Look at them, eschewing the norm and displaying 10:09. That's a watch with some fucking edge to it.

54
Jeremy Bentham (100%)
Nel Noddings (91%)   
John Stuart Mill (63%)

55
Flat Earth Community / MOVED: The Problem With Humanity
« on: May 16, 2016, 03:35:04 PM »

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: May 12, 2016, 04:32:16 PM »
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the universe?
« on: May 11, 2016, 02:59:28 PM »
And while we're at it, in what shape?

I mean this as a truthful question to FEs, because the thought of a universe that is only a few thousand kilometers across is just... depressing.

I mean, do you know how big the universe is? Like really, really big. As in, if the sun and the next closest star were the size of tennis balls, they would be on opposite sides of the continual United States. HUGE! There's so much stuff out there, and the sun, holly crap-snacks the sun isn't a spotlight. It's this massive energy factory, this huge powerhouse that provides more energy every second than every human on the planet uses all year. (And that's just the little bitty bit that hits the Earth's atmosphere)

Also: Solar Flares... how do they fit into the FET?

This is typical round-earth tactics. Their scientists aren't even sure exactly how big the universe is in their model yet we are expected to know the size.

60
Quote from: The Rules
This board is dedicated to discussing and working on the annotated Earth Not a Globe.

Hmm...maybe you should read the rules or show me where in ENaG this is...

Good catch, Thatsnice.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21  Next >