Offline ShowmetheProof

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • We are fellow scientists, and should act as such.
    • View Profile
Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« on: January 12, 2018, 06:09:39 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!

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #1 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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 07:56:20 PM by supaluminus »
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Macarios

Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2018, 09:12:17 PM »
Scores don't change facts.
If one have more points and claims Lake Ontario is concave, scoring would require other to give proof that it isn't.

Scoring would draw attention off facts and figures.
And in science there is no other authority but facts and figures.
No points, no status, no good name, no history of success...

Brush your debating. Advance the ability to get to the point.
Science isn't sports.
Scientists more cooperate than compete.
When truth comes out it s not victory of scientist(s) but of truth itself.
Result of working together.
Those who were wrong helped as well, to elliminate wrong branches.

Science isn't dogma ether.
If you have proof that mainstream theory is wrong, you don't need any background to publish it.
Nobody will "torture you in dungeon and burn you at stake for being heretic".
(Though some individuals might laugh if you are wrong.)
If proof is not total nonsense people will test and confirm if it's right.

When nine year old kid experiments to see how much sugar can be dissolved in glass of water, how fast, and with how much stirring, that's science too.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 09:16:05 PM by Macarios »

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #3 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."
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Offline ShowmetheProof

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • We are fellow scientists, and should act as such.
    • View Profile
Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2018, 01:23:01 PM »
I understand that it would draw away attention from facts and figures, but it would draw the attention towards proof.  I'm not saying that this set of ideals is perfect, but it is only the first draft.  The main idea is that you can't just say "Hey!  That isn't right!"  before you say "I've got proof here that this idea is at least partially right while yours isn't."

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2018, 01:54:46 PM »
If you are going to use 'credit score' as a metric, you should at least know how credit scores are formed.

If you have never borrowed any money ever from anyone, you have a low credit score. You could be a millionaire and you still would struggle for some forms of credit as your first application.

If you have dozens of credit cards and loans and liabilities, but always meet the minimum repayment, you get a high credit score. This could merely be because you are good at juggling your credit. It has no bearing on your ability to pay. You could be absolutely up to the eyeballs in debt and there will be companies champing at the bit to consolidate your debt and shuffle credit onto their accounts.


And I suppose this is what round earth is all about. It is busy writing cheques that it can't cash. Lots of noise, lots of credit ... no ability to actually pay the debt or trust given, off. Just an ability to service that debt with more appeals to authority and more hapless lenders happy to invest in this wacky ponzi scheme.

Meanwhile flat earth gets no credit, but it doesn't need it. It pays cash everywhere it goes.  8)
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 01:56:54 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Macarios

Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2018, 02:30:40 PM »
If you are going to use 'credit score' as a metric, you should at least know how credit scores are formed.

If you have never borrowed any money ever from anyone, you have a low credit score. You could be a millionaire and you still would struggle for some forms of credit as your first application.

If you have dozens of credit cards and loans and liabilities, but always meet the minimum repayment, you get a high credit score. This could merely be because you are good at juggling your credit. It has no bearing on your ability to pay. You could be absolutely up to the eyeballs in debt and there will be companies champing at the bit to consolidate your debt and shuffle credit onto their accounts.


And I suppose this is what round earth is all about. It is busy writing cheques that it can't cash. Lots of noise, lots of credit ... no ability to actually pay the debt or trust given, off. Just an ability to service that debt with more appeals to authority and more hapless lenders happy to invest in this wacky ponzi scheme.

Meanwhile flat earth gets no credit, but it doesn't need it. It pays cash everywhere it goes.  8)

Nice one.

Speaking of credit:

Flat Earthers always brag about being "defenders of truth" and "investigative" (zetetic).

Buy sextant (less that $30), learn how to use it, and measure Earth yourself.
Try to fit on flat paper equally scaled Tropic of Cancer (22850 miles), Equator (24900 miles) and Tropic of Capricorn (22860 miles). (Measured by using ground speed of subsolar point.)
Circumference of Equator is 40 000 km, and distance from North pole to Equator is 10 000 km. Could circle on flat plane have those measurements? (C=2*Pi*R)
For Equinox measure azimuths of sunrise and sunset and compare with what Flat Earth claims those have to be.
For Equinox measure angle between Sun and horizon for solar noon. Ask someone on DIFFERENT LATITUDE to do the same. Note both distances from Equator. Is calculated height of the Sun same? (Simple trigonometry.)
Measure distance to Moon using amateur wave at 432MHz. (Ask in nearest radio club.)
Visit Apache Point or McDonalds observatory and ask about Lunar Laser Ranging.
On a clear day measure angular speed of shadow of horizon cast during sunset (or sunrise) on mountain behind you.

There are tons of other things you can do yourself, to eliminate factor of others being "liars / conspirators".

Instead, you sit on your assets and repeat deceptions from Jeranism, Eric Dubay, "Dr" Rowbotham, and few others.

Not even Bible/Church ever claimed Earth to be flat.
Only static, but Galileo, Coperic, Bruno and others refuted that too.
.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2018, 02:37:58 PM »
Jeranism and Dubay have only been around a couple of years. It is they that lift our theories. Not the other way around. Unfortunately with Dubay, his unique contribution or addition tends to be antisemitism. Fortunately he's becoming a distant memory, whilst TFES endures.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Macarios

Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2018, 02:41:12 PM »
Jeranism and Dubay have only been around a couple of years. It is they that lift our theories. Not the other way around. Unfortunately with Dubay, his unique contribution or addition tends to be antisemitism. Fortunately he's becoming a distant memory, whilst TFES endures.

Rowbotham and some of his friends had been around less that two centuries ago.
Plato, Aristotle, Aristarch, Archimedes, Eartosthenes, Ptolemy about 2000-2500 years, Al-Biruni 1000 years, and so on...

EDIT: Here's how Al-Biruni did it. https://vimeo.com/97035111
.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 02:55:01 PM by Macarios »

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2018, 03:21:51 PM »
Don't lump youtubers in with Plato, Aristotle et al and when called upon it suddenly separate them out again in an effort to get a semantics win.

You said we get out theories from Dubay and Jeranism as well as Rowbotham. When I corrected and informed you we don't get theories from youtubers, you point out that Rowbotham and Aristotle have been around longer than TFES. Yes, we know that and we do use the works of geniuses from the past. But the point must stand that we don't form our theories based on youtube. Youtube borrows from us.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Macarios

Re: Credit Score Argument and Rules it Provides
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2018, 04:06:44 PM »
Don't lump youtubers in with Plato, Aristotle et al and when called upon it suddenly separate them out again in an effort to get a semantics win.

You said we get out theories from Dubay and Jeranism as well as Rowbotham. When I corrected and informed you we don't get theories from youtubers, you point out that Rowbotham and Aristotle have been around longer than TFES. Yes, we know that and we do use the works of geniuses from the past. But the point must stand that we don't form our theories based on youtube. Youtube borrows from us.

You talks about semantics?
And you are trying to put in my mouth that "Rowbotham was YouTuber"...

Facts and figures aren't "semantics".
I asked you about your own observations and measurements.
You switch conversation to "semantics".

Thanks, it explained everything.