The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: SadPanda on February 20, 2014, 02:53:22 PM

Title: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: SadPanda on February 20, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
Hi, I'm new here, just thought I would put my 2 cents in on the whole Flat Earth Theory. From what I have been reading, you are mostly based off of Empirical Evidence. I have seen many times where you claim something is Empirical only if it has been directly observed. Another thing I have seen is the bashing of reputed sources that completely refute this theory, claiming it has been falsified for money, and those who do this blackmail, bribe, influence, etc. of people trusted by the scientific community at large. The only thing I have trouble understanding about this is, why go through all this trouble just to make us believe the earth is round? Money? Well, I'm sure that Governments and private companies could spend their money on something better than shooting large chunks of extremely expensive hardware into the sky (and many average Joes have seen rocket and shuttle launches, you need to have some serious balls to say that they haven't). Propaganda? The majority of the worlds population is pretty damn stupid/uneducated, they don't need to try that hard to make people follow orders. And finally, the only people that you guys will truly listen to, are people who agree with you, and I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum are making an effort to try and gain evidence on the other side of the debate. So, maybe more people would take you seriously if any of you tried to find some evidence that the world IS a globe, and you couldn't, then your theory would have a whole lot more weight behind it.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 20, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
The only thing I have trouble understanding about this is, why go through all this trouble just to make us believe the earth is round? Money? Well, I'm sure that Governments and private companies could spend their money on something better than shooting large chunks of extremely expensive hardware into the sky
And yet we see North Korea doing exactly that, and the Western media making fun of them. Given how scarce their resources are compared to ours, surely they have better ways of spending them than to pretend they have a space program as big as they claim to?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: jroa on February 20, 2014, 06:19:24 PM
You can control the people in many ways: fear, force, and misinformation, to name a few.  If you can control their knowledge, you can control their minds, which is a big motivator, don't you think?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: SadPanda on February 22, 2014, 06:20:39 AM
Yes, but there is simply no point in trying to make people think the earth is round. Ok, the earth is flat, now what? For a sizable chunk of humans alive today, the shape of the earth really doesn't matter. My friend that is a gas station cashier really doesn't give 2 flying fucks about stuff like this, because it doesn't effect him. So why would governments and scientists try and convince us? Thats what point I was making. And the whole North Korea thing doesn't matter, because North Korean's as a whole probably don't give a shit about space, they are just trying not to starve to death under the heel of a tyrant. They waste their money on propaganda like that, it really doesn't do anything for them.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 22, 2014, 09:16:09 AM
So why would governments and scientists try and convince us?
Again, the exact same reason North Korea does. You're not trying to convince your friend from the petrol station, you're trying to convince other governments that you've achieved something. Trace it back to the cold war and the space race - neither America nor Russia would like to admit that they made stuff up, now would they?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Tintagel on February 22, 2014, 02:38:28 PM
Yes, but there is simply no point in trying to make people think the earth is round. Ok, the earth is flat, now what? For a sizable chunk of humans alive today, the shape of the earth really doesn't matter. My friend that is a gas station cashier really doesn't give 2 flying fucks about stuff like this, because it doesn't effect him. So why would governments and scientists try and convince us? Thats what point I was making. And the whole North Korea thing doesn't matter, because North Korean's as a whole probably don't give a shit about space, they are just trying not to starve to death under the heel of a tyrant. They waste their money on propaganda like that, it really doesn't do anything for them.

I don't think anyone here believes that the Powers That Be know the earth is flat and are actively working to bury this information.  We rather believe they are simply mistaken.  They may be lying about the space program, but that doesn't mean they're also lying about what shape they believe the earth to be.  They're just wrong about that.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: markjo on February 23, 2014, 12:00:34 AM
Trace it back to the cold war and the space race - neither America nor Russia would like to admit that they made stuff up, now would they?
I would think that America or Russia would have loved to show that the other side faked their space program during the cold war.  Sorta like how America was publicly embarrassed when a U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Russians after America said that they weren't sending spy planes to fly over Russia.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 23, 2014, 07:38:15 AM
I would think that America or Russia would have loved to show that the other side faked their space program during the cold war.  Sorta like how America was publicly embarrassed when a U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Russians after America said that they weren't sending spy planes to fly over Russia.
Ah, yes, but your example is missing a "tu quoque" element to it. If Russia said "Hey, America faked their space programme, the Earth is actually flat!", everyone would have to stop and think "wait, but you said it was round, and provided pictures!".

Discrediting the other side is all well and good, but they're in this together. Besides, as Tintagel said, they probably don't even know about this.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on February 23, 2014, 03:45:33 PM
I would think that America or Russia would have loved to show that the other side faked their space program during the cold war.  Sorta like how America was publicly embarrassed when a U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Russians after America said that they weren't sending spy planes to fly over Russia.
Ah, yes, but your example is missing a "tu quoque" element to it. If Russia said "Hey, America faked their space programme, the Earth is actually flat!", everyone would have to stop and think "wait, but you said it was round, and provided pictures!".

Discrediting the other side is all well and good, but they're in this together. Besides, as Tintagel said, they probably don't even know about this.

Both Russia and the US are regularly accused of lying to their populations.  Getting caught for the nth time doesn't really mean much to either government.  It happens all the time.  And what would "everyone" do about it, anyway?  Suppose the government comes out and says, "Yo dudes, we've been faking all this space stuff.  Later."  I bet everyone still goes to work the next day.  All the other space-faring nations are faking it, too, so it isn't like any of them would have anything to say or do about it.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 24, 2014, 06:32:54 AM
Why do you keep thinking this has anything to do with populations after I explicitly said it doesn't?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2014, 06:42:26 AM
Where did you explicitly say that?  Does you saying this make garygreen incorrect?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on February 24, 2014, 07:18:27 AM
Why do you keep thinking this has anything to do with populations after I explicitly said it doesn't?

If Russia said "Hey, America faked their space programme, the Earth is actually flat!", everyone would have to stop and think "wait, but you said it was round, and provided pictures!".

I took "everyone" in this sentence to mean all of the people in those nations.  I had not read your 'petrol station' comment.

I think it makes even less sense for space-fairing nations to be troubled over the repercussions of getting caught faking space travel.  All of the space-fairing nations already know that it's fake.  As you said, they're all in it together.  They lose nothing relative to one another.

As for every other nation: why would that knowledge really change for them?  What are they going to do?  Get mad and stomp their feet?

Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 24, 2014, 09:51:20 AM
I think it makes even less sense for space-fairing nations to be troubled over the repercussions of getting caught faking space travel.  All of the space-fairing nations already know that it's fake.  As you said, they're all in it together.  They lose nothing relative to one another.
What makes you think they know about each other's fakery?

Where did you explicitly say that?
You're not trying to convince your friend from the petrol station, you're trying to convince other governments that you've achieved something.

Does you saying this make garygreen incorrect?
I wouldn't say "incorrect" so much as that his question was not a valid one. I cannot clarify my thoughts on something I never said or thought.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on February 24, 2014, 05:02:31 PM
I think it makes even less sense for space-fairing nations to be troubled over the repercussions of getting caught faking space travel.  All of the space-fairing nations already know that it's fake.  As you said, they're all in it together.  They lose nothing relative to one another.
What makes you think they know about each other's fakery?

I don't.  I think the empirical evidence proving the legitimacy of space flight is overwhelming.  Even if I didn't, I'm not sure how I could answer that question since there is precisely zero empirical evidence on what these allegedly-fake space programs do or don't know about other allegedly-fake space programs.

I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.  I take the point of the OP to be skeptical of the narrative that space-fairing nations would go to such great lengths to fake being good at something that ultimately has little to no impact on foreign affairs.

In my view, the best argument you could make here is that the US and USSR needed to prove to one another during the Cold War that they had achieved ICBMs, that a 'peaceful' space program was the best means of developing and testing this technology, and that ICBMs certainly did have an enormous impact on foreign affairs in the second half of the 20th century.  Thus, if ICBMs are impossible, then both sides went to the trouble of faking space flight in order to convince the other that they had achieved them in order to maintain nuclear deterrence.

The problem with this narrative (especially if you're correct about their ignorance of each other's fakery) is that it fails to explain the following 50 years of space flight.  If you faked the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in order to prove to the USSR that you have ICBMs, then why would you continue to risk exposing your fraud after they've already been convinced?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 24, 2014, 05:12:16 PM
I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.
Well, it's absolutely key to the point you're making, so it makes a difference between you having a point and not having one.

The problem with this narrative (especially if you're correct about their ignorance of each other's fakery) is that it fails to explain the following 50 years of space flight.  If you faked the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in order to prove to the USSR that you have ICBMs, then why would you continue to risk exposing your fraud after they've already been convinced?
To maintain legitimacy. This isn't a competition that you win and forget about.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on February 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.
Well, it's absolutely key to the point you're making, so it makes a difference between you having a point and not having one.

Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.  This is true regardless of what US officials believe about other space programs.  It doesn't really matter, though; it's pointless speculation.

But to your point, it's pretty hard to imagine that the US wouldn't know that the other space programs are fake.  For one thing, space programs are internationally cooperative.  This is actually the argument that most conspiracy believers make: nations like India, Japan, SK, the UK, France, etc. are all cooperating with the US to fake space travel.  For another thing, the US is really, really good at spying on other nations.  We do it all the time (see: 20th and 21st century American history).

The problem with this narrative (especially if you're correct about their ignorance of each other's fakery) is that it fails to explain the following 50 years of space flight.  If you faked the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in order to prove to the USSR that you have ICBMs, then why would you continue to risk exposing your fraud after they've already been convinced?
To maintain legitimacy. This isn't a competition that you win and forget about.

Why?  Will the globe forget that we have ICBMs?  Will Russia?  If the US came out today and said, "Yo dudes, all these ICBMs are fake.  We don't really have any at all," what do you think would really change?  Do you believe that ICBMs are still essential to deter Russia and project US power abroad?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 25, 2014, 09:34:12 AM
Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.
That's simply untrue, which is exactly why more and more nations, especially "controversial" ones, are trying to get there. This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often".

But to your point, it's pretty hard to imagine that the US wouldn't know that the other space programs are fake.  For one thing, space programs are internationally cooperative.  This is actually the argument that most conspiracy believers make: nations like India, Japan, SK, the UK, France, etc. are all cooperating with the US to fake space travel.
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

For another thing, the US is really, really good at spying on other nations.  We do it all the time (see: 20th and 21st century American history).
Nah, they're good at breaking international laws in ineffective attempts to spy on citizens, which get frequently revealed. This, by the way, is the exact kind of reputation loss that they're afraid of when it comes to space programs.

Why?  Will the globe forget that we have ICBMs? [...]
Please stop trying to sidetrack this discussion.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on February 25, 2014, 01:19:19 PM
Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.
That's simply untrue, which is exactly why more and more nations, especially "controversial" ones, are trying to get there. This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often".
I'm sure you are aware there are many much better methods of making news than a space launch.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on February 25, 2014, 04:14:28 PM
Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.
That's simply untrue, which is exactly why more and more nations, especially "controversial" ones, are trying to get there. This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often".

You have yet to provide me with a single example of how getting caught faking space flight would materially impact US foreign policy or our international relations.  I'm well-informed, thanks.  I think that our foreign policy objectives, strategies, and relations are built on hard power.  Virtually nothing about our military or economic hegemony relies on sending people or machines into space (there are obvious exceptions, like the value of GPS to our military; but, FEers believe that that tech is a fiction anyway and is really just blimps or whatever).  I also don't think that any of it relies on our 'reputation' or 'prestige.' 

China is a pretty perfect example of this.  No one trades with China because they're so trustworthy, loyal, honest, prestigious, or reputable.  They trade with China because it furthers their own national interests.  Welcome to foreign affairs.

But to your point, it's pretty hard to imagine that the US wouldn't know that the other space programs are fake.  For one thing, space programs are internationally cooperative.  This is actually the argument that most conspiracy believers make: nations like India, Japan, SK, the UK, France, etc. are all cooperating with the US to fake space travel.
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability

For another thing, the US is really, really good at spying on other nations.  We do it all the time (see: 20th and 21st century American history).
Nah, they're good at breaking international laws in ineffective attempts to spy on citizens, which get frequently revealed. This, by the way, is the exact kind of reputation loss that they're afraid of when it comes to space programs.

What?  How naive are you?  This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?_r=0
Quote
Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, working closely with the National Security Agency, monitored the communications of senior European Union officials, foreign leaders including African heads of state and sometimes their family members, directors of United Nations and other relief programs, and officials overseeing oil and finance ministries, according to the documents. In addition to Israel, some targets involved close allies like France and Germany, where tensions have already erupted over recent revelations about spying by the N.S.A.

Also, why would the US be afraid of losing 'reputation' when it already happens frequently?  In other words, if US violations of international law are, as you put it, "frequently revealed," then why would anyone care about this particular instance?

Why?  Will the globe forget that we have ICBMs? [...]
Please stop trying to sidetrack this discussion.

I was responding directly to your point.  You said, "This isn't a competition that you win and forget about."  Why is that true?  Why does the US have to continually find new ways to remind the world that they can go to space in order to maintain its hegemony?  Why is going to space at all even necessary?  You haven't even explained that.  I'm the one who made that argument for you. 

e: I keep typing 'space-fairing' instead of spacefaring.  Goddamn.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2014, 06:37:07 PM
I'm sure you are aware there are many much better methods of making news than a space launch.
No one's trying to make the news, I'm just asking you to read it now and then.

You have yet to provide me with a single example of how getting caught faking space flight would materially impact US foreign policy or our international relations.  I'm well-informed, thanks.
You can't simultaneously be well-informed and claim complete ignorance of the importance of the space race and its aftermath.

A minor scandal means minor trouble. Here, have a recent example: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/italian-space-chief-offers-to-resign-over-expenses-114020701363_1.html

And here's a less recent example of why it may be a good idea to fake this stuff: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8416561/Soviet-Union-lied-about-1961-Yuri-Gagarin-space-mission.html

If you want to advertise an ideology, it's a good idea to show some worthwhile successes to go with it.

I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability
You're not even attempting to answer my questions anymore. If you plan to keep trying to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap, you may as well just talk to yourself. I have better things to do than deal with your intentionally obtuse attitude.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: markjo on February 27, 2014, 01:29:35 AM
And here's a less recent example of why it may be a good idea to fake this stuff: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8416561/Soviet-Union-lied-about-1961-Yuri-Gagarin-space-mission.html

If you want to advertise an ideology, it's a good idea to show some worthwhile successes to go with it.
I'm sorry, but where in that article does it say that the Russians faked Gagarin's mission?  In fact, in some ways, getting caught lying about how and where he landed proves that the mission was not faked. 
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on February 27, 2014, 04:27:01 AM
I'm sure you are aware there are many much better methods of making news than a space launch.
No one's trying to make the news, I'm just asking you to read it now and then.

Leaving your condescension aside, I became confused when you quoted yourself.

Quote
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability
You're not even attempting to answer my questions anymore. If you plan to keep trying to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap, you may as well just talk to yourself. I have better things to do than deal with your intentionally obtuse attitude.

You seem to be getting upset for no reason.  It appears you said his comment was irrelevant because he was including non-space faring nations.  He quite rightly responded by saying those were space-faring nations, negating your complaint.  Where is the problem?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on February 27, 2014, 05:07:05 AM
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability
You're not even attempting to answer my questions anymore. If you plan to keep trying to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap, you may as well just talk to yourself. I have better things to do than deal with your intentionally obtuse attitude.

You asked, "What makes you think they know about each other's fakery?"  I responded that I don't think it matters; but, if it does, then I think they'd likely know because they're so internationally cooperative.  I listed examples of such cooperative nations.  Then, you said, "I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation."  I took you to be saying that my example nations were not spacefaring.  I responded with evidence that those nations are spacefaring.  I'm genuinely not sure what your point is since you won't just state it clearly, but I'm trying to respond to you as directly as possible.  Not sure what you're so upset about.

If I'm the one being unclear, here's my point (taking the point of view of NASA):

1.  You're correct that the individuals responsible for faking space travel have much to lose.  For the fakery narrative to make sense, they must similarly have a lot to gain.

2.  The most obvious reason I can see to fake space travel in the 50s and 60s is to prove to the USSR that you can nuke them with ICBMs.  If you believe that the USSR has ICBMs, and if you believe that you never will, then it makes some sense to try and fake it to maintain deterrence.

3.  If you don't actually have ICBMs, and if ICBMs are critical to your national interests, then it doesn't make any sense to keep pretending to go to space once you've 'proven' to the USSR that you can.  It doesn't get you any more hard power.  All it does is increase your exposure to the risk of getting caught.  There's no reason for fake space stations and fake Hubble and fake planetary probes and fake weather satellites etc.  You've argued that you do it for something like 'reputation' or 'prestige,' but those aren't very valuable to foreign affairs.  Why risk exposure for them?

4.  Hard power drives international relations, not 'reputation' or 'prestige.'  I think that nations behave according to their national interests.  The US having a space program doesn't affect those foreign interests.  At least not anything like our alliances, economy, and military do.  And, again, you yourself said that the US already has its reputation tarnished regularly by violating international law (and spying on foreign diplomats and government officials).

Your two links don't really address any of that.  The first says that life sucks hard for an Italian official who got caught stealing from their space program or something.  It doesn't say anything about that being bad for Italy or it's program or anything else.

The second says that the USSR lied about the landing location so they could say they set a world record.  It doesn't say that they flight was fake. 
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 27, 2014, 12:13:19 PM
You're correct that the individuals responsible for faking space travel have much to lose.
That admission took you long enough.

For the fakery narrative to make sense, they must similarly have a lot to gain.
And they have, back in the days of the space race. Now they're just living out the consequences of a poor decision of the past.

2.  The most obvious reason I can see to fake space travel in the 50s and 60s is to prove to the USSR that you can nuke them with ICBMs.  If you believe that the USSR has ICBMs, and if you believe that you never will, then it makes some sense to try and fake it to maintain deterrence.
Fair enough. I disagree, since ICBMs have nothing to do with sustained space flight, but okay.

3.  If you don't actually have ICBMs, and if ICBMs are critical to your national interests, then it doesn't make any sense to keep pretending to go to space once you've 'proven' to the USSR that you can.  It doesn't get you any more hard power.  All it does is increase your exposure to the risk of getting caught.  There's no reason for fake space stations and fake Hubble and fake planetary probes and fake weather satellites etc.
Under your (invalid) assumption, perhaps.

You've argued that you do it for something like 'reputation' or 'prestige,' but those aren't very valuable to foreign affairs.  Why risk exposure for them?
Because our dealings with the likes of the United States are quite different from those with China. Among other things, the United States are respected as one of the world's leading countries (if not simply the leading country) in science and technology, as well as the ideology they so actively promote. The ideology bit is already plunging like crazy, what with recent (and not-so-recent) news of the USA ignoring human rights or basic diplomatic protocol. Especially now, they are in a position where they cannot stop easily; although it's worth noting that they've been trying, by continuously cutting NASA's budget. Eventually, the space craze will just quietly die off. They don't want to risk exposure. They simply have to do so to avoid blowing their cover while quietly closing down the whole business.

4.  Hard power drives international relations, not 'reputation' or 'prestige.'
Which is exactly why nations like India are respected, eh? You can say "hard power" as many times as you want, and it will still not be the sole (or even the most important) factor driving diplomacy.

The second says that the USSR lied about the landing location so they could say they set a world record.  It doesn't say that they flight was fake.
Um, yeah. If mainstream media reported that space flight was faked, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Then again, you don't read the news and rely on being "well-informed" instead, so perhaps we would be. In either case, I wouldn't be the one in the minority.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on March 04, 2014, 09:48:49 PM
You're correct that the individuals responsible for faking space travel have much to lose.
That admission took you long enough.
I didn't realize that it was even in contention.  Of course the individuals responsible for such a fraud have much to lose by getting caught.  I've been arguing that the United States has little to lose in terms of its foreign interests abroad.  It's allies must already know, and it's relations with its adversaries (ie. Russia) already have little to do with soft power (reputation) and everything to do with hard power (economic and military strength).

Additionally, I'm arguing that the only rational reason available to explain why such individuals would take such a risk is to convince the USSR that the US possess fully functional ICBMs.  The gains from soft power alone are minimal and unpredictable.  However, this hypothesis fails to explain why these individuals would continue the fraud and increase their risk of exposure for the next 50 years for no additional gain.

You suggest that they're just letting it die quietly.  The facts do not bear that out:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG)
(http://static.squarespace.com/static/51296a10e4b0dc8d3ddc051d/51296e3ae4b0b536a29499f1/51296e3ae4b0b536a2949a6a/1334197797073/percent%20of%20us%20budget.jpg/1000w)

They're sure taking their sweet time.  And instead of letting it die quietly, they're sensationalizing their fake probes, fake satellites, fake space telescopes, fake astronomical images, fake space stations, fake astronauts, fake rovers, fake employees, fake rockets, fake moon rocks, etc.  Precisely none of your narrative makes any logical sense.

You've argued that you do it for something like 'reputation' or 'prestige,' but those aren't very valuable to foreign affairs.  Why risk exposure for them?
Because our dealings with the likes of the United States are quite different from those with China. Among other things, the United States are respected as one of the world's leading countries (if not simply the leading country) in science and technology, as well as the ideology they so actively promote. The ideology bit is already plunging like crazy, what with recent (and not-so-recent) news of the USA ignoring human rights or basic diplomatic protocol. Especially now, they are in a position where they cannot stop easily; although it's worth noting that they've been trying, by continuously cutting NASA's budget. Eventually, the space craze will just quietly die off. They don't want to risk exposure. They simply have to do so to avoid blowing their cover while quietly closing down the whole business.

The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' at least not much beyond the contribution those two make to our military and economic strength.  It's not because of how impressed everyone is with us.  To the limited extent that our scientific knowledge is impressive to other nations, and to the limited extent that it materially affects US foreign policy, sending humans into space is just a tiny part of that impression.  Personally, I think that the information and medical sectors are much more compelling to other nations.  Vastly more so than the fact that we send anyone to the Moon.

Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space.  It's much broader.  It's about ideology and culture.  Some authors, like Joseph Nye, believe that it's one of the primary forces that shapes international relations are large.  I think he's mistaken about its importance, but that's just me.  Either way, putting a human on the Moon isn't really a big part of it: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-soft-power

4.  Hard power drives international relations, not 'reputation' or 'prestige.'
Which is exactly why nations like India are respected, eh? You can say "hard power" as many times as you want, and it will still not be the sole (or even the most important) factor driving diplomacy.

It's a term of art. 

India supports my narrative.  Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe.  If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon.  They could duke it out with Denmark over Nicest Nation Ever.  Instead, India has relatively little influence over its own region.  It's still embroiled in territorial disputes with China and Pakistan with no end in sight.  "Respect" isn't really doing much for India. 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574511-indias-lack-strategic-culture-hobbles-its-ambition-be-force-world-can-india
Quote
NOBODY doubts that China has joined the ranks of the great powers: the idea of a G2 with America is mooted, albeit prematurely. India is often spoken of in the same breath as China because of its billion-plus population, economic promise, value as a trading partner and growing military capabilities. All five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council support—however grudgingly—India’s claim to join them. But whereas China’s rise is a given, India is still widely seen as a nearly-power that cannot quite get its act together.

Nothing about China's ideology is attractive to the global community at-large.  Why do you think they're a global power and India isn't?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 04, 2014, 10:02:12 PM
You suggest that they're just letting it die quietly.  The facts do not bear that out:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG)
(http://static.squarespace.com/static/51296a10e4b0dc8d3ddc051d/51296e3ae4b0b536a29499f1/51296e3ae4b0b536a2949a6a/1334197797073/percent%20of%20us%20budget.jpg/1000w)

They're sure taking their sweet time.
Yes, if you tried paying attention to what I said instead of looking for ways to trip me up with semantics and empty "well-informed, thanks" rhetoric, you'd realise that this is consistent with what I said. They'd like to let it die, but they can't. Your graphs are excellent evidence of that, and I thank you for strengthening my argument.

The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' [...]
Again, you can restate it as much as you won't, and it still won't make your argument any more true. You need to start substantiating it if you want to get anywhere.

Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space.  It's much broader.  It's about ideology and culture.
Absolutely agreed. The reason we're not discussing irrelevant elements of soft power is that they're irrelevant. You really need to stop trying to shift the focus of this discussion away.

Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe.  If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon. [...]
Right, now that I no longer have doubts that you have no interest in an educated debate, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on March 05, 2014, 12:55:01 AM
Yes, if you tried paying attention to what I said instead of looking for ways to trip me up with semantics and empty "well-informed, thanks" rhetoric, you'd realise that this is consistent with what I said. They'd like to let it die, but they can't. Your graphs are excellent evidence of that, and I thank you for strengthening my argument.
Your constant insistence that I'm trying to be deceptive is getting tiresome.  I probably just misunderstood you.  You aren't exactly verbose, and you typically leave the reader to guess at what your point might be. 

You're merely asserting that these conspirators 'can't' let NASA die.  Even if that's true, my graphs show that NASA funding has been pretty stable since 1975.  Meanwhile, that money has been spread around to lots and lots of new endeavors, like probes, satellites, and telescopes.  It makes no sense for the conspirators to expose themselves to more risk in that way.  It makes no sense that the conspirators have the power to initiate a space program on that scale, but not to kill it.

The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' [...]
Again, you can restate it as much as you won't, and it still won't make your argument any more true. You need to start substantiating it if you want to get anywhere.
...at least not much beyond the contribution those two make to our military and economic strength.  It's not because of how impressed everyone is with us.

I provided you with the examples of the US, Russia, and China.  All three of these are nations that, as you agree, struggle to maintain a positive image internationally and are all consistently involved in violations of international law.  China and Russia especially struggle to make their political philosophies attractive to...anyone.  And yet, these three nations wield the greatest influence in the international community.  Contrast this with India, a nation that is both beloved and culturally influential, and, as I evidenced, internationally inept.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/
Quote
Hard power has not been in vogue since the Iraq War turned badly in about 2004. In foreign policy journals and at elite conferences, the talk for years has been about “soft power,” “the power of persuasion” and the need to revitalize the U.S. State Department as opposed to the Pentagon: didn’t you know, it’s about diplomacy, not military might! Except when it isn’t; except when members of this same elite argue for humanitarian intervention in places like Libya and Syria. Then soft power be damned.

The fact is that hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world, for reasons having nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the Harvard professor and former government official, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., who, in 2004, actually coined the term “soft power” in an eponymous book, has always been subtle enough in his own thinking to realize how relevant hard power remains.

As I write, the two areas of the world that are most important in terms of America’s long-term economic and political interests — Asia and Europe — are undergoing power shifts. The growth of Chinese air and naval power is beginning to rearrange the correlation of forces in Asia, while the weakening of the European Union in geopolitical terms – because of its ongoing fiscal crisis — is providing an opportunity for a new Russian sphere of influence to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, both challenges require robust diplomacy on America’s part. But fundamentally what they really require is a steadfast commitment of American hard power. And the countries in these two most vital regions are not bashful about saying so.

The coup in Ukraine is another excellent example of why hard power is so much more important to protecting national interests.  Russia is able to react to the coup in Ukraine with relative impunity due largely to the fact that they have nuclear weapons.  They've said as much explicitly.  The US and EU response isn't limited by how much they like Russia.  It's limited by the size and power of the Russian military.  It's limited by the resistance to a possible trade war with a nation that exports so much energy.  The West's desire for closer economic and political ties with Ukraine have nothing to do with Ukraine's sterling reputation (the opposite, in fact) and everything to do with the West's desire to contain Russia.

I can keep going, but you haven't yet provided any evidence that soft power is vital to US influence in foreign affairs.  You haven't provided any evidence that admiration of US 'science and technology' is critical to soft power.

Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space.  It's much broader.  It's about ideology and culture.
Absolutely agreed. The reason we're not discussing irrelevant elements of soft power is that they're irrelevant. You really need to stop trying to shift the focus of this discussion away.

I obviously think that they're relevant.  If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power.  It's too small an aspect of soft power.  It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk.  That's my point.  Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.

That's why I linked the Nye article (oh hey, more evidence that you said I didn't provide).  It explains the important aspects of the US soft power landscape, and all of the things he talks about have vastly greater leverage on US foreign policy than NASA.

Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe.  If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon. [...]
Right, now that I no longer have doubts that you have no interest in an educated debate, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.

Fine by me.  I've been at least as civil as you've been, and I've done my best to engage your arguments seriously.  You just keep calling me stupid and accusing me of intentionally trying to obfuscate the discussion. 

Merely asserting that all of your claims are obviously true isn't very persuasive.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 05, 2014, 01:36:07 AM
If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power.  It's too small an aspect of soft power.  It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk.  That's my point.  Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.
Ever heard of those people who confuse evolution with abiogenesis? That's what you're doing right now, and that's why this is my last response to you. You take offence to me claiming you're doing this on purpose, but the only alternative is that you have absolutely no self-awareness. I'm doing you a favour by assuming you're just an unexperienced troll.

Perhaps someone else will take you up on your trollfest, but I doubt it. In either case, best of luck.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: garygreen on March 05, 2014, 03:16:07 AM
If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power.  It's too small an aspect of soft power.  It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk.  That's my point.  Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.
Ever heard of those people who confuse evolution with abiogenesis? That's what you're doing right now, and that's why this is my last response to you.
This is a good example of why it's better to just state plainly why you disagree with my statement.  I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make.  I guess you mean that I'm conflating two fundamentally disparate concepts, but I don't know which ones because you won't just say it.

You take offence to me claiming you're doing this on purpose, but the only alternative is that you have absolutely no self-awareness. I'm doing you a favour by assuming you're just an unexperienced troll.

Perhaps someone else will take you up on your trollfest, but I doubt it. In either case, best of luck.
I'm not offended.  I'm actually doing my best to respond constructively to someone who is, at this point, just calling me an ignorant, disingenuous troll over and over again (ok, the troll part is new...kudos).  I guess I have no self-awareness, but I'm not even sure what you mean by that, either.

I'm stating my responses clearly and directly.  You're name-calling and offering terse, ambiguous remarks.  Not sure what else I can do to facilitate productive discussion.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: RealScientist on May 24, 2014, 02:51:16 AM
Yes, but there is simply no point in trying to make people think the earth is round. Ok, the earth is flat, now what? For a sizable chunk of humans alive today, the shape of the earth really doesn't matter. My friend that is a gas station cashier really doesn't give 2 flying fucks about stuff like this, because it doesn't effect him. So why would governments and scientists try and convince us? Thats what point I was making. And the whole North Korea thing doesn't matter, because North Korean's as a whole probably don't give a shit about space, they are just trying not to starve to death under the heel of a tyrant. They waste their money on propaganda like that, it really doesn't do anything for them.

I agree completely. As a scientist I could not care less about the shape of the Earth. I only care about the things I need for my everyday life. How long will the airplane trip to Europe be? Where should I point my telescope to? How long will this new road be?

If I could get any answers at all starting from a flat Earth, I would be more than happy to accept this. But the answers are just not there. Only useless explanations after the fact.

I would, however, find a worldwide conspiracy about the shape of the Earth in less than a month. Maybe even in less than a week. And I would blow the top off the Conspiracy and become famous and rich in less than a year.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: pilot172 on June 03, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
think if they don't want you to find out about the shape of the earth why is it possible to build and launch your own rocket, they have an old missile test range in south Australia open to the public and I guess if you go out far enough into the bush in Australia you could launch your own rocket, right now you can buy a diy orbital rocket for $8000 if the conspiracy doesn't want anyone finding out why is that allowed to be sold
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2014, 04:06:33 PM
Why would it be disallowed? It'll just crash and burn anyway - it's a self-solving problem.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: pilot172 on June 04, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
so the pictures the myriad of pictures they bring back not evidence, or do you and I need to build a rocket to settle this
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: jroa on June 04, 2014, 11:42:58 AM
How high would that rocket have to go in order see the whole Earth?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2014, 12:33:10 PM
How high would that rocket have to go in order see the whole Earth?
Just how is seeing the whole Earth relevant? Surely we can determine the Earth's basic shape without such detail, right? Can you come up with a test from such a rocket to determine RE versus FE at some moderate height? What height and for how long would answer the question for you?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: jroa on June 04, 2014, 12:39:47 PM
Well, if you can't see the whole Earth, then you really can't make an empirical judgement on the shape, now can you? 
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2014, 01:10:47 PM
Well, if you can't see the whole Earth, then you really can't make an empirical judgement on the shape, now can you?
Really? Why is that? I don't need to see all of my cat to make an empirical judgement that she's a cat. Why would you need to see all of the Earth to decide if it's basically flat or not? Again:
Can you come up with a test from such a rocket to determine RE versus FE at some moderate height? What height and for how long would answer the question for you?
(http://i.imgur.com/i20kThq.jpg) See: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/bm_gallery_4.html
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: markjo on June 04, 2014, 01:17:43 PM
Well, if you can't see the whole Earth, then you really can't make an empirical judgement on the shape, now can you?
Sure you can.  Just looking out your window is enough to empirically convince most FE'ers that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: jroa on June 04, 2014, 01:19:23 PM
If I can't see all of the US at once, then I am taking other peoples' word of the shape of it.  Can we agree on this? 
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2014, 01:47:08 PM
If I can't see all of the US at once, then I am taking other peoples' word of the shape of it.  Can we agree on this?
No. You can design an empirical data collection to ensure that you've accurately tested the hypothesis. And as markjo expressed, please apply the same standards to both FET and RET. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

And again:
Can you come up with a test from such a rocket to determine RE versus FE at some moderate height? What height and for how long would answer the question for you?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: markjo on June 04, 2014, 01:55:28 PM
If I can't see all of the US at once, then I am taking other peoples' word of the shape of it.  Can we agree on this?
You take other people's word for lots of things.  Are you saying that everyone could be lying about everything that you can't see for yourself?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: jroa on June 04, 2014, 01:58:34 PM
markjo, it is probably too early for you to be drinking, so I can understand you being in a bad mood.  Where did I say everyone is lying?  What is your point, in fact? 
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on June 04, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
What is your point, in fact? 

You take other people's word for lots of things.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: markjo on June 04, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
markjo, it is probably too early for you to be drinking, so I can understand you being in a bad mood. 
What makes you think that I'm in a bad mood?  ???

What is your point, in fact?
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2014, 04:06:28 PM
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.
Walking into the Flat Earth Society and telling us to trust other people's experience on the shape of the Earth would be like walking into a church filled with creationists and telling them to trust scientists on the matter of evolution (or vice-versa, going to a university and trying to convince the biology professors there that evolution is a hoax and they should trust creation science instead). It doesn't matter how right you think you are, or even how right you actually are, it simply won't work.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on June 04, 2014, 05:08:50 PM
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.
Walking into the Flat Earth Society and telling us to trust other people's experience on the shape of the Earth would be like walking into a church filled with creationists and telling them to trust scientists on the matter of evolution (or vice-versa, going to a university and trying to convince the biology professors there that evolution is a hoax and they should trust creation science instead). It doesn't matter how right you think you are, or even how right you actually are, it simply won't work.

But you guys do it -all- the time.  Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement. 
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2014, 06:05:27 PM
But you guys do it -all- the time.  Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement.
No, we don't. We don't invade mainstream science forums and bother everyone with BLE.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on June 04, 2014, 06:13:33 PM
But you guys do it -all- the time.  Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement.
No, we don't. We don't invade mainstream science forums and bother everyone with BLE.

Fair enough, I was speaking to FEers taking others word for things they have not personally experienced, but that was obviously not the thrust of what you wrote.  You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand.  Got it.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand.  Got it.
No, I'm saying that if you come to the Flat Earth Society and say "the Earth is round, trust <someone> on that one" (and make it the central point of your argument that <someone> said this), you're not going to convince anyone. This will happen regardless of the actual shape of the Earth. You're entering a group with a certain belief, telling them their belief is wrong, and demanding that they take your word for it.

Similarly, if you enter a mosque and say "Jesus Christ is our lord and saviour, trust the Pope on that", you're probably not going to end up converting anyone. It doesn't matter whether or not the view you're advocating is correct, people who are opposed to it to begin with won't be convinced just because someone they don't view as an authority has said so.

It's a very biased approach and a double standard, but it's essentially universal to humanity.

Assuming you're not a creationist, would you believe creation science just because Ken Ham says it's true? He's very experienced and spent a lot of time working on it. I presume the answer is "no", because you have your own (in your view: better) reasons to believe he's wrong. It would be stupid of me to harp on you for that, because my entire argument was "lol trust Ken Ham plz".

It takes more than a demand that we trust someone to change one's fundamental views. We won't "dismiss [other views] out of hand", but we won't believe them just because you say that sometimes it's necessary to trust others. That'd be insane.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on June 04, 2014, 06:54:24 PM
You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand.  Got it.
No, I'm saying that if you come to the Flat Earth Society and say "the Earth is round, trust <someone> on that one" (and make it the central point of your argument that <someone> said this), you're not going to convince anyone. This will happen regardless of the actual shape of the Earth. You're entering a group with a certain belief, telling them their belief is wrong, and demanding that they take your word for it.

Similarly, if you enter a mosque and say "Jesus Christ is our lord and saviour, trust the Pope on that", you're probably not going to end up converting anyone. It doesn't matter whether or not the view you're advocating is correct, people who are opposed to it to begin with won't be convinced just because someone they don't view as an authority has said so.

It's a very biased approach and a double standard, but it's essentially universal to humanity.

It is universal, in that all humans do this in some place in their life yes.

Quote
Assuming you're not a creationist, would you believe creation science just because Ken Ham says it's true? He's very experienced and spent a lot of time working on it. I presume the answer is "no", because you have your own (in your view: better) reasons to believe he's wrong. It would be stupid of me to harp on you for that, because my entire argument was "lol trust Ken Ham plz".

It takes more than a demand that we trust someone to change one's fundamental views. We won't "dismiss [other views] out of hand", but we won't believe them just because you say that sometimes it's necessary to trust others. That'd be insane.

Alright, I see where you are coming from now.  Part of the essential problem I find both REers and FEers suffer when they debate in these fora, myself included, is that no one here really has any true expertise in most of the relevant fields of knowledge, especially the sciences.  I think to a certain degree we all trust the people that speak most potently to our own beliefs, and grasp at reasons to debunk the other side.  My bias admitted I still try to see the merit in the FE side, so I suppose a more appropriate phrase, than "Trust Frank, he knows the true shape of the Earth" is, "Give Frank a try, he makes a good case for the true shape of the Earth."

Thanks for the illumination.
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Yamato on July 04, 2014, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Rama Set link=topic=1242.msg31513#msg31513

Part of the essential problem I find both REers and FEers suffer when they debate in these fora, myself included, is that no one here really has any true expertise in most of the relevant fields of knowledge, especially the sciences.

No one?
Even given the case, do you need personal information to make a theory more valid?
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2014, 07:29:50 PM
No but someone with an in depth technical background in Astronomy, Physics or Geodesy would have no trouble demolishing someone like Tom Bishop in a debate. On the other FES site there was an astronomer named Major Twang who embarrassed FEers in debates on the regular until he got too bored.

A physicist, for example, would be able to address any and all objections to the Cavendish experiment.

A surveyor could talk in depth about encountering curvature in their work.

And so on...
Title: Re: "Empirical" Evidence
Post by: Yamato on July 06, 2014, 08:04:25 PM
No but someone with an in depth technical background in Astronomy, Physics or Geodesy would have no trouble demolishing someone like Tom Bishop in a debate. On the other FES site there was an astronomer named Major Twang who embarrassed FEers in debates on the regular until he got too bored.

You mean something like this (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1493.msg33975#msg33975)?