41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / How the Scientific Method Demonstrates 'Objective' Truth

« on: January 13, 2018, 05:26:25 PM »

This is kind of a spin-off of another post in Debate, but now that I've had time to think about it, I reckon that post should have been placed here in the first place.

Some further ruminations while trawling through the rival FES forum led me to the following hypothesis:

"If the evidence submitted in support of a scientific claim has been obtained by adhering correctly to the scientific method, rather than the claim simply being the result of a mistake in one's attempt to adhere correctly to the scientific method, then the evidence can be relied upon to provide us with a solid and reasonable approximation of what we call 'true.' Therefore, the same can be said of the method used to derive said evidence."

This is meant to support the claim that we exist in grounded, objective reality. Here is what I mean in the most practical way I can put it, broken down, with bold for emphasis:

1 ) To test the ruggedness and reliability of any method is to test its capacity for making predictions successfully and accurately. This is what it means to "test" objectivity itself.

2 ) To attempt to demonstrate objectivity, we must first agree upon a reliable method for determining what we "know," and conversely, "don't know," for all that objectivity means in a practical sense.

3 ) The method in question - the scientific method - attempts to root out what is unreliable, implausible, or otherwise unreasonable to call "true" or "known..." That's why we call it science, from the Latin scientia, from scire, which means "to know."

4 ) The scientific method, like any tool, is susceptible to user error, but that is not the same as the method itself being in error.

I don't mean to suggest that just because someone claims something is "scientific" or "it's science, bitch" means that the claim itself is true, just that the method for deriving the evidence in support of that claim has to be consistent with the scientific method in order for it to be called true scientifically, which is to say true objectively.

Put in the form of a hypothesis, what I'm saying is what you saw at the start of the post:

"If the evidence submitted in support of a scientific claim has been derived by adhering correctly to the scientific method, rather than simply being the result of a mistake in one's attempt to adhere correctly to the scientific method, then the evidence can be relied upon to provide us with a solid and reasonable approximation of what we call 'true.' Therefore, the same can be said of the method used to derive said evidence."

Does that make sense to you?

42

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 13, 2018, 07:33:04 AM »

How would your math translate to this picture?

Hope you don't mind, I replaced your original link with a higher resolution version of the same image.

So... I have the answer to this question, but before I invest another second into attempting to educate you, lackey, I want to know that you're actually listening. Are you ready for this, or do you want to keep flinging shit around, hoping it sticks?

I'll get to your other question regarding the motions of the stars soon enough, but this question came first. It was an interesting trek through the internet for me to find the answer, but I'm back and ready to share with you what I've learned.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2018, 04:44:35 AM »

As for the grenade analogy, that goes back to invoking conspiracy.

You’re saying the grenade represents your claim that there’s a conspiracy, and the “lighter” and me are therefore dangerous and not to be trusted. This is what you mean, no? Correct me if I’m missing something; I want to communicate effectively and be sure I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not here to fuck with you.

The analogy relates to the observation of the earth.

We look out the window and see that the earth is flat. Therefore the conclusion is that the earth is flat until evidence has been presented otherwise. If you are saying that the earth is actually something else, then the burden is on you to show that.

Evidence has been presented otherwise. You're ignoring and dismissing it.

In the case of your assertion that the flat horizon contradicts the globe earth model, the horizon only appears that way UNTIL you understand the limits of your own perspective as a 6-foot tall bipedal fucked up monkey living on a giant ball.

Again, the observation says that the earth is flat. Your assertion that it might really be a giant ball, it's just that we can't see it, is a rationalization against an empirical observation. The evidence is still that the earth is flat.

I'm just going to assume that we can begin this conversation with your first scientific observation in defense of the flat earth model being "look outside, look at that horizon, it's flat out there," and we can hopefully progress from there. I hope that's okay with you, because so far you seem to be set on keeping us stuck here at the starting line for as long as possible.

First off, and for the last time, I'm not rationalizing anything. You clearly don't know what that word means, nor empiricism, or at the very least you don't care to know them or use them responsibly.

What I'm doing is to remind you of the simple, true, and correct logical principle that "it looks like X to me" does not mean "it is X in reality." That is a horrendously fallacious mistake for anyone to make, and you need to comprehend that if we're going to have a productive dialogue.

Moving on, and more importantly, what I said neither contradicts the flat earth nor proves the globe earth model, it only demonstrates that both observations about the horizon appearing flat are consistent with both models. The point of this exercise was to demonstrate to you that there's an alternative explanation for why the horizon appears flat to you.

The real problems only start cropping up once we start digging deeper than that initial claim about the horizon. When you start asking questions like, "Why can't I see New York from France," or "Why do the bottoms of objects disappear first when traversing beyond the horizon," or "Why does the sun appear to 'sink' into the ocean," that's when the first claim really shows its true colors. Instead of talking about those, we're stuck here over some bullshit.

All my skepticism does is raise a reasonable doubt, Tom. It's really not that complicated. I demonstrated for you the principle - perspective - behind why my doubt is reasonable. It's then up to you to demonstrate your claim to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt." One way you could do that is to explain how you know that your perception of a flat earth is distinguishable from what one would perceive on a globe.

If you can't explain that, then your claim about the horizon neither proves nor disproves either model and is therefore totally useless to determining which model is correct.

If you could say, "No, that's not what you would see on a globe, you would see this," then we could make some progress, but we're not.

You can linger all you like on the horizon claim, but I'm not contesting your claim that it looks flat, I'm contesting your claim that it is flat because it looks flat. Your claim isn't demonstrating how one can know that it is flat because you aren't answering a very simple, and easily understandable question of how you know that what you're seeing can't possibly be anything else. I demonstrated for you how it could be so. Rather than address that demonstration, you sidestepped it completely and instead attempted to shift the burden of proof to me for a claim I never positively made.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's not consistent with every other observation and measurement we can make, it's not empirical, and I've shown you why and how.

Stop being incompetent or stop pretending to be. I don't care which, just stop wasting everyone's time.

I ask once more, would you care to discuss the flat earth model and how it is or isn't consistent with reality? We can start with your first mention of looking outside, or the objection to the issue of limited perspective on a giant ball. It's really up to you. Submit your best, most compelling evidence, as much as you like, and we'll go through each exhibit one by one.

Well, I submitted something -- that we see that the earth is flat -- and so far your only remark is that it *might* be a giant ball or something. It *might* also be a giant torus. We don't give a hoot about "might". We care only about "is". The fact of the matter is that it is evidence that the earth is flat, and not evidence for any of those other things.

I didn't make a claim about what it might be, is, or anything resembling a positive claim, I only objected to your implied assertion that because it looks flat from our perspective, it can only be flat. I demonstrated, quite saliently, that there is more than one possible hypothesis. I took it a step further and provided you other measurements and observations we can take that support that hypothesis.

What you are doing is off-loading the burden of proof to me before you've even allowed us to fitfully scrutinize your first proof claim about what you can observe at the horizon. Why I did is to make an observation and demonstrate why that observation is empirically consistent. Then you, refusing to even recognize the legitimacy of my rebuttal, attempted to turn this into a confusing game of semantics over who bears the burden of proof at any given moment.

You're bloody well confused, man, and you need to realize that and stop wasting everyone's time. The rest of us would thank you for being honest enough to recognize that for the sake of having a productive conversation. At least, I know I would.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 13, 2018, 04:16:40 AM »

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."

And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.

But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.

6or1/2Dozen already answered this one for me, but I'm going to reiterate what he said in my own words, and I'm going to try to use examples.

There is no such "shape" exception to the statement "'it looks like X' does not mean 'it is X'."

You said:

A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X.

Your phrasing is very weasely. Can one always know what shape an object is at a glance, or can't they? Is it possible that your eyes can fool you, or can't they? This question should be rhetorical, but in your case, I think we have to make an exception.

We are simply saying that your eyes can fool you. Either you see the sound reasoning in that, or you don't. Either you CAN identify any shape, correctly, at a glance, with no minimum requirements in terms of visual cues or otherwise, or it requires EXACTLY those things first, as both 6 and I have said.

I'mm gonna try and walk you through a few examples that refute your claim that "a shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X." Ignoring your weasel words - identifiable "for all intents and purposes," it is indeed "of" shape X, etc. - the following examples will demonstrate the principle we're talking about.

Example 1

Assume that we have a three dimensional cube. Orient yourself so that your point of view is centered with one side of the cube and so that you can only see the one side. If we assume that the cube itself cannot move, you cannot distinguish this three-dimensional cube from a two-dimensional square unless...

• You shift your angular perspective in order to see another side/all other sides of the cube.
• You perceive the shadow of the cube cast on another surface. Depending on the angle of the light source, the shadow of the cube will appear distinct from that of a two-dimensional square.

There are conceivably other cues, like depth perception, that could potentially help you distinguish this cube from a square. Those first two cues, however, cover a great deal of ground, as you'll see in the next example as well.

Example 2

Assume that we have a three dimensional sphere. Orient yourself so that your point of view is centered with the sphere. If we assume that the sphere itself cannot move, you cannot distinguish this three-dimensional sphere from a two-dimensional circle unless...

• You shift your angular perspective in order to perceive any depth to the sphere. A circle viewed head on will appear to warp into an ellipse when your angular perspective shifts in this way. A sphere, by contrast, will appear the same regardless of your angular perspective.
• You perceive the shadow of the sphere cast on another surface. Depending on the angle of the light source, the shadow of the sphere will appear distinct from that of a two-dimensional circle.
• You perceive the way a light source moves across the surface of the sphere. The same light source shone on a flat circle will not behave in the same way.[/b]
  

That's just two, dude. I know I expressed them in literal terms, but I think you're smart enough to comprehend WHY, when we look at the statement, "'it looks like X' does not mean 'it is X,'" there is no such exception with respect to shapes. You can ALWAYS be mistaken if there's yet more information, more cues, whatever, to add context to the scenery you perceive with your own two eyeballs.

Please don't make me break out the crayons.

45

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: why would the government want to hide it if the earth was flat?

« on: January 13, 2018, 03:41:44 AM »

No, the question remains, "Why did they hide the truth?"

Actually, it's both, but first we have to agree on whether or not anything was even hidden in the first place. Hence "what, specifically," as in "what, specifically, did they allegedly lie about, and how?"

It's unreasonable to start asking questions of "why" and ascribing motive without first constructing a reasonable approximation of what, specifically, the lie was about in the first place.

In other words, if you claim that NASA lied about X because you saw Y evidence where Z appeared to happen when it shouldn't have, or when you think it shouldn't have, where Z is the whole point your argument is hinging on, we have to agree first that Z happened the way you think it did, and not rather as a result of you simply being mistaken.

The reason I'm not being specific, giving a real world example and walking you through it, is because I really don't care to get into the weeds with you about individual NASA conspiracy claims. I'm really more interested in talking about the science and the unreasonableness of the flat earth model in light of that science.

So please, keep with the topics you believe they have hidden the truth about (you do not even need to reveal to us what you believe they have hidden the truth about) and just provide the answer(s) to why they hid the truth in those instances.

I'm challenging this idea specifically because it's not a real conspiracy. As I already said, the reason I don't care to get into the weeds with you about all this conspiracy hogwash is simple:

B ) You don't HAVE to disprove the conspiracy in order to show WHY the circumstantial evidence is consistent with one model or the other. If the earth is flat, conspiracy or no, the fully scrutinized and compiled body of evidence will show that. It does not.

Moving along...

If your answer is "everything," sorry, you're way off.

Nope. I am "way on," this time.

I do not think governments release lies in response to every query.

Well thank goodness for small miracles. We agree on something.

46

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 13, 2018, 02:01:30 AM »

Got one or not...

Once you do have it, come back, present it, and the formulas behind it for an open, independent inspection, and if proven to be legitimate, I will STFU.

... Honestly, at this point, I'm not liking my odds of you shutting the fuck up or doing anything even vaguely resembling concession, regardless of what I accomplish, true or untrue.

I'm going to humor you with the calculations n'shit, I just want to remind you that it was you who made the claim, in so many words, that the maths basically aren't there or have been tampered with. You made a claim without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence, but I'm going to humor you.

The least you could do in exchange is try to observe a few basic principles of logical consistency and honesty.

Cheese is available for this whine in AR...

I don't know why you're making light of my objection to you being dishonest about what you know and don't know regarding mathematics in a discussion about mathematics, but that's none of my business.

Like I said, if you knew the point, then it was not me wasting any time trying to bury the essential point behind a wall of text.

That was you focusing on the haystack, rather than the needle.

I will grant you that I talk a lot, but every word of that "long and drawn out treatise" and every other ounce of effort I've put into attempting to reach you has been substantive, my combative compadre.

... You really should read that spoiler text, if you haven't. I don't know what more I can do than that to try and convey my intentions to you earnestly.

I'll try and keep it to just the Cliff's Notes, if you're having such a hard time digesting everything at once.

No, that was trying to figuratively bury a live grenade.

We'll see if it's a grenade or a pop rock, just chill out.

47

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:24:53 AM »

Long drawn out treatise essentially telling me to eat shit and die.

Especially given the fact there is no CGI model presented of the Solar System based on the Laws of Kepler and the Laws of Newton.

How do you know this?

Especially given the fact (even though you stated you would) contained no work relative to the graph I presented.

I'mma get around to it, settle down.

No, instead you want to keep yammering on by my statement on computations or my lack of doing them etc, etc...you knew the fucking point i was making to begin with and wanted to try and hang your hat on something as to avoid the real subject.

I did know the point you were trying to make, I just objected to the way you went about doing it; i.e., dishonestly.

I didn't do this to try and avoid anything. We would be talking about your graphic right now if you hadn't decided to start dancing in circles around the inherently problematic reasoning behind your claim.

I could linger on it further, but I told you that I'm willing to agree to disagree and say that this was merely a semantic disagreement on the way you used the expression "it does not compute."

I just wanted at least one chance to object to your first claim, then an opportunity to respond to your rebuttal. After that, I generally don't press the issue any further unless I think I haven't been communicating clearly.

Look, the bottom fucking line is this...

Do you all got the CGI model or not?

If so, is it based on the fucking LAWS of Kepler, Newton?

If it is, let's see it and the fucking math behind it.

If not, then that is some damning evidence against the fucking heliocentric model.

And yeah, they are fucking LAWS, as in INVIOLATE.

So, chop...chop...ante up!

Like I said, we can hash that out, I just wanted to fully ferret out your first claim about the maths.

Oh, and by the way...

You got any argument against the graph I presented as far as not adequately representing the curvature of the Earth?

Yeah, this makes the second time in one post you've mentioned that. Settle down, Kathy. I'm getting to it.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:21:19 AM »

Stinkyone,

Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".

They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.

You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.

Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:03:33 AM »

I think your heart's in the right place, Proof, I just don't think this idea is very practical for the reasons I already outlined. Macarios added some solid arguments supporting that fact.

My personal strategy for moving the ball forward is setting a good example and attempting to compile simple, easy-to-understand, step-by-step analogies. I find that it's easier for people to comprehend the problematic and fallacious logical missteps behind their mistaken thinking when, rather than using the subject being discussed, we find a more practical, relatable example to compare it to.

I think it would also help if everyone agreed to the same terms, which is why I started threads like "We Exist in Grounded, Objective Reality" and "The Commandments of Intellectual Honesty."

50

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 12, 2018, 11:45:51 PM »

You are correct.

I have not run the numbers.

Thank you. Honesty after the fact is better than none at all.

Please continue.

The numbers provided for ANY CGI representation of the COMPLETE movement of the Solar System obviously compute out to that particular rendering; however, there is no rendering demonstrating the "textbook model."

Further, there is no release of the data inputs used for the rendering.

Further, I will not go so far as to label it a conspiracy, but the fact they do not freely supply those inputs and the fact they are not openly labeled as "soundly based on all applicable theories and LAWS from Newton, Kepler, etc." tends to bring to one's mind the behavior of the NIST and and its modeling of WTC7. The NIST will not release its data inputs either.

Okay, but is that really the case?

I'm agnostic on this, so I'm more than willing to accept your claim if we could conclude, after a rigorous search, that no such "textbook model" exists. To reiterate; my only objection to begin with had to do with your claim that the math "does not compute," which wouldn't be accurate even if we DID agree that no such model exists. If you had simply said from the start that you DOUBT it computes, BECAUSE you've found no textbook model, we might be having a totally different conversation right now.

In any case, I'll accept your claim about the lack of information on face value for the sake of the discussion until we can investigate further. Let's move on.

First, I know what a LAW is.

I know what a THEORY is.

I'm sorry, but your argument demonstrated the opposite.

I don't think you know what either of those words mean, scientifically speaking. At best, you have a surface understanding of the meaning of those terms, but as I said, your argument demonstrates your misunderstanding clearly.

In your attempt to demonstrate how terms like "law" and "theory" support your claim that science claims to have "all the math" - or "all the answers," if I may lift the veil of subtext so we can be a bit more direct - you show that you either don't understand or don't care to understand the flexibility of scientific theory and the limited application of scientific law.

Both of these facts - the flexibility of theory and the limited application of law - show that any scientist worth his salt WILL acknowledge that he DOESN'T have all the answers and he CAN'T explain all of the contradictions and finite application of those facts. This is why scientists have been seeking a "unified theory" since time immemorial, because there's ALWAYS something we don't know.

I can understand where you're coming from if what you're responding to is the charicature or archetype we know as the strident, high-brow, condescending scientist looking down his nose from atop his intellectual ivory tower at anyone who disagrees with him. Mistaking that attitude as a representation of what science is and how it works is a bit like having a chip on your shoulder with respect to Christianity and religion because the only sects you pay any mind to are Westboro Baptist Church and the Taliban.

I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, unless you want to take another whack at trying to convince me otherwise.

That does not change my stance I believe I made an honest statement, whether or not I have run the numbers.

Oh for fuck's sake, man.

If you were being honest, what you would have said is, "Because I'm convinced that we can't find the numbers anywhere, and I believe this is intentional due to the conspiracy, I can say confidently that the numbers either do not comport with scientific and mathematical law, or else have been tampered with. For these reasons, I don't have to run them myself."

But that's not what you said. Not even close.

I'll agree to let this go if you want to call it a semantic disagreement, but try to be more careful about making affirmative statements about maths you have neither seen for yourself nor had anyone explain to you.

Let's move on...

I do not believe a CGI representation of the Solar System (utilizing the LAWS of Kepler or Newton) exists or can exist because:

1) The outcome (if truly utilizing Newton and Kepler formulas and correctly applying the Laws), will clearly demonstrate the heliocentric model as false;

2) The outcome, if clearly supporting heliocentricity, will have some inputs made up by some Joe Schmo from Toledo, OH, and will be completely devoid of any inputs reflecting the works of Newton or Kepler.

You are basing this on two unstable foundations:

1 ) The fact that YOU PERSONALLY have never found the formulae, and

2 ) The fact that you already believe a conspiracy exists.

You are just hand-waving about conspiracy when it comes to these numbers. Stop trying to characterize it as something else and just be honest and straightforward. Either learn to distinguish one argument from another or stop playacting at being able to form a coherent argument in the first place.

Not at all.

Once the CGI is rendered and released, I can look and see the inputs are legitimate, I will pretty much shut up.

Let's try to go through this step by step... like an equation...

You made a claim that the maths "does not compute."

I asked you to demonstrate this by showing us the maths. The only way you could POSSIBLY demonstrate this claim affirmatively is by either showing us the maths or explaining it to us exactly as someone else explained it to you.

I gave you an example of how the former is done by referring to the "8 inches per mile squared" fallacy and showing you what the ACTUAL maths behind curvature and drop height looks like.

Not only did you NOT show the maths, you didn't even answer the question. Instead you told us why you THINK you can't find the formulae anywhere. You didn't provide any evidence supporting your first claim about how the maths "does not compute." Instead you made an empty claim about conspiracy to try and justify the first claim.

Not only that, when you finally looked at my math, you completely misunderstood what it was even showing - telling me to translate a two-dimensional drop height calculation to a three-dimensional sphere, hurr durr - and then had the gall to tell me to go and find the NASA formulae FOR you rather than simply owning up to the fact, right then and there, that you never did any maths in the first place.

You are not practicing what you preach with respect to providing empty claims, sir. I am not saying this to simply admonish you. If I were in your position, I would want someone to set me straight, and I would take a serious attempt to do so at face value.

I promise to address that question in my next post. That image looks like it deserves some time and attention before I can reconcile it in a way that makes any sense to you, and I've already spent a lot of time on this response so far. Be patient with me, and I promise I'll address this question.

Hey, I appreciate it.

Thanks for writing back.

Likewise.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2018, 10:49:49 PM »

When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth? We haven't. We have concluded that there is a conspiracy taking place that fakes space exploration (for whatever reason such as embezzlement). We base that conclusion on the inconsistencies present in NASA photos, etc. This includes such anomalies as lemmings and a flying bird on mars, and obvious Photoshopping of space images.

But this is separate from flat earth in general. Yes, we use it to dismiss the satellite images of earth, but we're not suggesting that anyone is intentionally hiding a flat earth. NASA and other space agencies are simply faking images based on what the public already accepts. Again, we have valid reasons independent of flat earth to believe space exploration is a hoax.

I recommend you refrain from using strawman fallacies here (if that is what you are doing). You're portraying us as crazies, which we most certainly are not. If you're going to make claims that all we have are conspiracy theories, may you please cite a few? Then I suggest you read the tfes wiki

Well, I think you're half right.

Maybe you haven't done this, and maybe it isn't par for the course here (I'm new), but it has been my experience that flat earthers will inevitably retreat into conspiratorial hand-waving once any scientific "evidence" has been demonstrably shown to be mistaken.

That being said, I'm aware that isn't the same thing as the question you asked, "When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth?" I understand that proving a flat earth and proving a NASA conspiracy are distinct concepts, and clearly you do as well. Other flat earthers, however, seem to have a hard time separating the two - again, in my personal experience.

Take that anecdotal evidence and dismiss it for what it is, if you like, but I'm not foisting an argument on anyone. Rather, I'm making two basic claims:

1 ) The scientific observations made by flat earthers, once thoroughly and rigorously scrutinized, DOES NOT comport with reality.
2 ) Once this can be demonstrated as true, the only place flat earthers have left to go is either A ) by casting doubt and aspersions on the globe model vis-a-vis conspiracy, or B ) argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Maybe I should have stated that more clearly. If you're saying that the wording in the OP sounds like a straw-man fallacy, I will concede to you and admit fault, apologize, and ask that you forgive the mistake and move on instead to the hypothesis, or at least the claims I outlined here.

I'm not trying to characterize anyone as "crazies" because I don't think there's anything inherently "crazy" about conspiracy theory.

I'm also not making the claim that "all you have" is conspiracy theory. What I meant, rather, was that conspiracy theory is the only avenue one can conceivably take after scientific observation fails to pan out. The only reason I don't highlight argument from ignorance specifically and more prominently is because it seems a bit redundant when juxtaposed by empty claims about conspiracy theory.

You still "have" scientific observation, or the capacity to measure and record such; I'm neither foisting anything upon you nor trying to take your scientific observations away. I'm only claiming that such observations will inevitably fall flat and leave you no option other than to try and cast vague aspersions and doubt on the globe model, based on conspiracy claims, or retreat into argumentum ad ignorantiam more generally - "we don't know enough, therefore we can't say we know anything."

I hope that you see my rebuttal as fair.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ehy haven't round earthers gone to the South pole to prove flat earth wrong?

« on: January 12, 2018, 09:29:11 PM »

If flat earth theorists are wrong about Antarctica, why don't round earthers PROVE it by going to the "south pole" to debunk us?

Well, it seems simple enough to me. Right? Most flat earth theorists (myself included) believe traveling to the "south pole" is off limits to people. I get that there was amundsen who THOUGHT he made it to the south pole, but why haven't round earthers in modern times with more advance technology gone to the "south pole" to prove us wrong in a more precise way?

Round earthers have no excuse. They have the funding and do not believe they would be denied entry to the south pole. So, why have they never gone to the south pole to debunk us? Maybe because flat earth theorists are correct and the round earthers know it? They demand us with our little support, funding, and backing to perform such an elaborate and expensive endeavor. How ludicrous! We're literally incapable of doing such due to our status in society. But what exactly is stopping the round earthers?

Doesn't seem reasonable compared to suggesting a FE trip to see it with your own two eyes.

Or we could simply do away with the usual solipsistic-paranoid hybrid argument of “I haven't seen it, and I believe there's a conspiracy to hide its true nature, therefore the prevailing scientific consensus is fake” and just have people perform the same experiments we’ve known for centuries to demonstrate the geometry of the earth.

But that would make too much sense, and would require going into the experiment open-minded, and NOT digging in your heels and REFUSING to see anything objectively. No offense to any flat earthers here, but this seems to be a problem with most I run into. I've even called out fellow globe-tards for doing the same and becoming dogmatic and condescending.

The point is, be honest, be open minded, and we'll get to the bottom of this... or else we can keep this enormous circle-jerk back-and-forth going until we're both blue in the face.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ehy haven't round earthers gone to the South pole to prove flat earth wrong?

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:55:29 PM »

If flat earth theorists are wrong about Antarctica, why don't round earthers PROVE it by going to the "south pole" to debunk us?

Well, it seems simple enough to me. Right? Most flat earth theorists (myself included) believe traveling to the "south pole" is off limits to people. I get that there was amundsen who THOUGHT he made it to the south pole, but why haven't round earthers in modern times with more advance technology gone to the "south pole" to prove us wrong in a more precise way?

Round earthers have no excuse. They have the funding and do not believe they would be denied entry to the south pole. So, why have they never gone to the south pole to debunk us? Maybe because flat earth theorists are correct and the round earthers know it? They demand us with our little support, funding, and backing to perform such an elaborate and expensive endeavor. How ludicrous! We're literally incapable of doing such due to our status in society. But what exactly is stopping the round earthers?

I don't really have the time or the money. If I did, and I made a post about it, I suspect flat-earthers would dismiss it or cast vague aspersions like they do with every other independent who has made this journey while on vacation, or even while on a legitimate, scientific expedition, for instance.

For that reason, even if I did have the time and money, I'd be even less inclined to try because it seems like a foregone conclusion.

How about you?

54

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: why would the government want to hide it if the earth was flat?

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:52:24 PM »

Have governments hidden the truth regarding any subject from the populace?

Yes. They have. The question is "what, specifically?"

If your answer is "everything," sorry, you're way off.

I defer to the same example. It seems like a moot point to even allege conspiracy and link that to the model of the earth when we can model the earth ourselves. There is a mountain of evidence - repeated here ad nauseum and largely ignored by flat earthers - consistent with the globe earth model and inconsistent with the flat earth model.

If NASA is just hiding the fact that space travel is fake, it seems to have ZERO to do with lying about the shape of the earth UNLESS you take the agnostic position of, "I have no idea WHAT the earth looks like from 300 miles up, I just know space travel is fake." Which, let's be 100% clear; the first claim is subjective and susceptible to a mind in denial, and the second claim isn't true at all. You don't "know" space travel is fake, you know that you've seen some pictures and videos and interviews etc. that convinced you without first rigorously scrutinizing the information. If you had, you wouldn't be this disillusioned and confused, but you didn't.

That's the "royal" you, by the way; the "majestic plural." Not trying to point fingers at you specifically.

Oh I agree, the conspiracy bit still has some issues. I just wanted to make sure we were starting on the proper page with any refutations, as there are plenty among the FE believers who will dismiss any salient points outright for such a misstep.

I believe the whole conspiracy bit is just there to ensure no photo's from NASA et al can be used as evidence, since it firmly sets the precedent that everything they put that's 'from space' is fake. Also, always remember the place of the conspiracy within the Flat Earth Hypothesis.

That's a fair point. I don't want to foist upon anyone any assumptions about what they believe, I want to represent them fairly and accurately. Steel-manning is so much more effective than straw-manning, but it requires that your opponent isn't making you wrestle every bit of information out of them. Sometimes just getting a flat earther to explain what their model "looks like," to present a coherent hypothetical model, is like pulling teeth.

I suspect this is because they would rather WAIT for you to ascribe certain facets before they have to adopt them on their own. This way, they can later claim, "I never said that, you're straw-manning," and derail the conversation from there.

A.K.A., intellectually dishonest bullcrap.

55

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: why would the government want to hide it if the earth was flat?

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:14:03 PM »

What you have to conclude from this if you're a flat earther is, "Well, I still don't believe the earth is a globe, even though the evidence is consistent with that, but NASA/the government/science/Bill Nye the Science Guy are still lying about SOMETHING, I just don't know WHAT or WHY."

This point I think is why the official stance of the FES IS NOT, that there's a conspiracy hiding the shape of the Earth. The conspiracy is that space travel is fake. Hence all images from space are fake, and they depict a globe because that's the popularized shape of the Earth. NASA and co. themselves don't know the Earth is actually flat. Your points still mostly apply, just want to make sure everyone is starting from the same page on what the conspiracy is actually hiding according to TFES.

I defer to the same example. It seems like a moot point to even allege conspiracy and link that to the model of the earth when we can model the earth ourselves. There is a mountain of evidence - repeated here ad nauseum and largely ignored by flat earthers - consistent with the globe earth model and inconsistent with the flat earth model.

If NASA is just hiding the fact that space travel is fake, it seems to have ZERO to do with lying about the shape of the earth UNLESS you take the agnostic position of, "I have no idea WHAT the shape of the earth is, I just know space travel is fake." Which, let's be 100% clear; the first claim is subjective and susceptible to a mind in denial, and the second claim isn't true at all. You don't "know" space travel is fake, you know that you've seen some pictures and videos and interviews etc. that convinced you without first rigorously scrutinizing the information. If you had, you wouldn't be this disillusioned and confused, but you didn't.

That's the "royal" you, by the way; the "majestic plural." Not trying to point fingers at you specifically.

56

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: why would the government want to hide it if the earth was flat?

« on: January 12, 2018, 07:45:54 PM »

I hear it a lot but I just don't understand, why would the government want to hide the truth from us?

There isn't a single rational explanation that holds up to scrutiny.

I want to eventually address the conspiracy claims, because that's what this comes back to, but the bottom line is this...

Let's assume the following:

1) The earth is a flat, motionless plane beneath a dome.
2) There is a massive, elaborate, global (haha) conspiracy to hide the reality of the natural world from the public at large.
3) The primary deception in this conspiracy is that we are 6-foot tall, upright, bipedal, binocular space monkeys living and dying on a massive, round, oblate spheroid spinning on its axis and revolving around the sun at hundreds of thousands of kilometers per hour in an infinite void we call "space." There are of course more details, but that's the primary deception.

If we assume that all of those things are true, and we ignore investigating conspiracy claims any further (because we believe it), the first problem arises when we attempt to reconcile the flat earth model with reality, i.e. the body of observations and experiments we can gather in reality CONTRADICT the first assumption. Those observations are NOT CONSISTENT with what we should see on a flat earth model.

A SINGLE observation MIGHT appear consistent on first glance (“flat” horizon) but empiricism dictates that ALL of your observations or at least NEARLY ALL of your observations must be consistent with one another. The flat earth model doesn’t even come CLOSE to withstanding this kind of rigorous scrutiny.

Furthermore, that same body of observations is CONSISTENT with what we might perceive from within a globe model, but that isn't the point - we're not defending or supporting a positive claim for the globe earth, or attempting to "prove" anything about it, we're just making these three assumptions and challenging them for consistency.

So let's assume we're a flat earther and we believe the first assumption. When information is presented to us that contradicts the first assumption, that DOESN'T mean that we have to ALSO disregard the second and third assumption. We could instead say, "Well, that makes sense, but I still don't believe in a globe earth. The conspiracy is real, and that might not tell me that we live on a flat earth, but it does give me pause to SUSPECT the globe model."

What we end up with is something called argumentum ad ignorantiam - argument from ignorance.

Without relying on the conspiracy, all a flat earther can do when presented with the body of evidence that contradicts the first assumption is claim that we don't have enough information to PROVE a globe earth model and DISPROVE the conspiracy.

What you have to understand about this flawed reasoning is two things:

A ) Yes, the fact that most if not all of the circumstantial evidence is CONSISTENT with the globe earth model and INCONSISTENT with the flat earth model DOES lend empirical weight to the globe earth model, even if it doesn't "prove" it in the same way you might "prove" the existence of your own penis by looking down at it. To say that we don't have enough information to give us reasonable and accurate model for reality is to retreat into argumentum ad ignorantiam.

B ) You don't HAVE to disprove the conspiracy in oder to show WHY the circumstantial evidence is consistent with one model or the other. If the earth is flat, conspiracy or no, the fully scrutinized and compiled body of evidence will show that. It does not.

What you have to conclude from this if you're a flat earther is, "Well, even if I concede to the globe model, NASA/the government/science/Bill Nye the Science Guy are still lying about certain aspects of it, I just don’t know WHY."

This is again argumentum ad ignorantiam, as you are alleging that someone is lying without providing a logically consistent and reasonable motive to ascribe.

tl;dr...

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: We Exist in Grounded, Objective Reality

« on: January 12, 2018, 06:57:16 PM »

Do you even?

Yes.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides

« on: January 12, 2018, 06:38:20 PM »

I would like to bring this topic back, because I want FE'ers to understand it completely.  The British way to measure credit was talked about near the end, and FE'ers need to understand what it meant, because lately I've noticed that you guys aren't thinking about it.  The main idea is that when given questions or when saying you have a theory you must provide an answer and proof.  The RE has provided proof time and time again.  The FE has never given any good proof.  Therefore, they have a lower score than the RE.  In response, I have come up with this idea of some good debate rules. 
1.  If you have consistently answered questions with answers and proof, you raise your score.
2.  Proof must be sufficient, and able to explain to someone who has knowledge of the science you're talking about.
3.  This is the most important one!  If your score is lower than the other side's score, you must provide proof before you deny others.
Rule three is the one I have seen violated a lot.  FE'ers have never given proof, but they continually deny RE.  So don't annoy people by saying "Blank is wrong because of Blank" unless you have proof.  Get some darn proof before saying we're wrong!

The only problem I have with this system is that it requires that all parties are being honest.

Say we have an impartial arbiter deciding on what answers do and don't qualify as a valid response. Someone honest, looking at the reasoning, might be able to accept the ruling, admit fault, and go about their day, moving on to the next claim.

By contrast, someone who begins the conversation INTENDING to dig in their heels no matter what and stalwartly fling bullshit and ignorance around, hoping that something eventually sticks, will not concede to this point, and will instead question the impartiality or the good sense of the arbiter. At best, the former may even claim that he’s confused at the ruling and thinks it mistaken, but it’s difficult to say if these kinds of “sorry I’m dumb” claims are genuine or just a weasel’s attempt to avoid ever having to concede the point themselves.

Most of the time, even when I or others provide cogent, rational explanations, or objections that point out the flaw in someone else's argument, they just wind up refusing to concede and start dancing in circles. They don't care about actually arriving at the truth so much as confusing the issues and exhausting the opponent's patience until they either wear them down or retreat themselves from the conversation.

The attitude looks something like this:

"If I just stand my ground and stubbornly refuse to concede, eventually something I say will trip them up or make sense, and both parties will either be too confused or too exhausted to continue. I might not have convinced the other party, but at least I can walk away and say they didn’t convince me either. I would rather force an illegitimate stalemate than admit legitimate fault.”

If I'm just judging by what I've seen, A LOT of people subscribe to this attitude, which makes a credit system like this difficult. Unless BOTH PARTIES are practicing intellectual honesty, there will always be some dishonest asshole trying to undermine the good faith judgment of the arbiter who decides what qualifies as a substantive answer or not.

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 12, 2018, 06:03:53 PM »

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchen

"If it's a quote from someone famous, it must be true!"
― KAL 9000

That isn't helpful. The statement itself IS true, it's just not being applied accurately to THIS situation.

60

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 12, 2018, 09:37:23 AM »

The point is that (in my opinion) Newton's Laws were called laws not because they were better theories than relativity or quantum theory, but that at the time they were named humans had the hubris to think we could determine once and for all Scientific Truth rather than what we understand now as an ongoing quest for ever improving models that can never truly be proved correct - they can only fail to be proven incorrect.

Now we know that we could discover edge cases that make a theory not perfect, so we shouldn't call things a law.

EDIT to add: I realize this puts me at odds with the "laws are just rules, theories include a 'why'" distinction - I mean this more in a practical sense. I think using the word "law" is misleading and always has been, because often laws are incorrect or incomplete (as Newton's laws are) and the word theory encapsulates this better.

To me, this sounds a lot like lackey's confusion over the common parlance use of the terms vs. the scientific context.

I appreciate the point you're making, but you're reading a lot of that hubris and other stuff into the situation. The scientists and men who you seem to be accusing of hubris had a totally different understanding of the way the words "law" and "theory" are used, and that is where the disconnect exists between what you're observing and why they chose to use the words they use.

I agree that it's confusing. That doesn't make it inconsistent or whatever you're saying. I defer to something I said to lackey:

So I say again, science DOES NOT claim to have "all the math," just enough for us to form a comprehensive model of reality that we can rely on well enough to make predictions. But that's too wordy for the public at large, so it's much easier to say that we "know" a scientific law "works," and this is partly where the confusion comes from.

If you get hubris from that description, I don't know what to tell you. It's just mathematical principles vs. hypothesizing about the way the world works to the best approximation we can manage with the limited tools at our disposal. Nothing hubristic about it, in my personal opinion.