61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Commandments of Intellectual Honesty

« on: January 12, 2018, 09:29:39 AM »

What do you mean by 'common ground'? If you mean 'find words and meanings that you both agree on' then I agree, but there are some opponents that I find so morally repugnant that I have no desire to make peace with them.

As for avoiding logical fallacies - that depends on who you're talking to and the purpose of your discussion. There are times when a logical fallacy can be a useful way to frame an argument.

If someone's so morally repugnant to you, I have to wonder why you'd have any incentive to practice any kind of intellectual honesty with them, much less find common ground. This has more to do with any scenario where you want to have a productive, honest conversation. If that's your goal, it behooves you to open up by convincing your opponent that you have a shared goal or perspective, and build from there.

The second point you make is fair, but these "commandments" are ASSUMING that your intention is to demonstrate things logically, honestly, and consistently. If demonstrating a logical fallacy falls within the parameters of your argument, say for the purposes of demonstrating an example of a logical fallacy, or to lead your opponent in a certain direction in order to demonstrate a certain point, you haven't broken any of the commandments. You've only broken the third commandment if you stumble into a logical fallacy by mistake.

If you recognize that mistake and fail to correct it, you've also likely broken the fourth and fifth commandments as well, which is much worse than making an honest mistake.

62

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:54:53 AM »

Realistically, we would probably not call Newton's Laws "laws" if they were discovered today. We'd call them Theories, because we know that we might discover further edge cases down the road.

Einstein's theory of relativity, if it were treated the way Newton's laws are, should be called a law. Quantum theory should be called a law. But we have learned as a species that calling anything a scientific law is hubris.

Having trouble wrapping my head around what you're attempting to convey. Can you expand on your point?

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:46:20 AM »

Are you breathing right now, or is breathing just happening?

Both. I can stop breathing at will, or else I'll suffocate. Likewise, when I'm unconscious, like when I'm sleeping, my brain can take over the reflexive action of breathing just like it does my heart or any other vital, regulatory function in the body.

With respect to breathing, the only thing stopping me from suffocating myself at will would be the desire to live or to put a stop to what would otherwise be a painful (at first) and distressing way to die.

Are you seeing right now, or is seeing just happening?

Seeing is just happening. You can sever my reteina or my ocular nerve and I'll stop seeing, or I could simply shut my eye, but otherwise, I'm only able to see what I can point my eyes at to take in light. It happens without me thinking about it, just like hearing, tasting, or any other unconscious sensory experience.

Not to deflate the new-age fluffiness of the idea, but the senses aren't really that special. Everything from the most complex primate to the least complex insect has the capacity for simple, unconscious sensory perception like touch, sight, hearing, taste, and smell.

Are you thinking right now, or is thinking just happening?

Both. Meditation is a thing. So is the subconscious.

If you are the one thinking right now, then tell me what your next thought is going to be. It can't be done.

If I know me, my money's on "boobs."

You can control your thoughts just as readily as you control your car, but even the minute reactions at the chemical level in the combustible engine of your car are susceptible to spontaneous, random chance. So too are your own thoughts when we factor in the subconscious.

The only difference, really, is that machines tend to be better regulated, and so there tends to be less spontaneity.

Because the voice in your head that you confuse to be your own thoughts is outside of your control. The thoughts (voice) come in and out of your perception. And any action you ever take is either decided on by the voice in your head, which is outside of your control, is an impulse, which by definition is outside of your control, or a combination of the two. And in each of those cases, it is always greatly influenced by input from the outside world, which is definitely outside of your control.

By this logic, the idea of free will is shown to be an illusion. Thoughts? Do you have a different idea of what free will is? Is there a reason to think that perception of the body is different than perception of the rest of the world?

You're confusing impulse with willpower. Impulse isn't a contradiction of willpower, but rather the very thing that gives willpower any context in human agency.

If you're instead saying that everything is impulse and not willpower at all, how do we distinguish between the two in the first place? Control is the answer, and our conscious mind is the engineer pulling the levers. Impulse, by contrast, is managed chiefly by that niggling subconscious lizard brain at the top of our spinal column.

Just because we aren't in complete control of the world around us, or even our own minds, doesn't mean we have no agency in our own lives.

It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.

64

Flat Earth Theory / We Exist in Grounded, Objective Reality

« on: January 12, 2018, 07:18:01 AM »

So I've got at least a few claims here that I want to work out, because I think they're pretty fundamental to both models flat and round.

1 ) We exist in grounded, objective reality.

2 ) The subjective, first-person experience is the only exception to the first claim. Barring that one exception, there is nothing that any one person can observe that another person cannot also observe, congruently, given that both observers repeat the same experiment and possess the same physical capacity to observe (literally sense of sight, hearing, taste, etc.).

3 ) Differences in opinion can be meted out as factual, plausible, or inconclusive.

4 ) With respect to the competing models of the earth,  only one model comports with reality - it can't be both.

I think it's important that we agree on these premises if we're ever going to make any headway. It's hard enough getting people to stop yammering on about the conspiracy claims and ignoring simple, cogent explanations, but then every so often some solipsistic tripe makes its way into the conversation.

I don't know if there's anyone here who disagrees strongly enough with these premises to make a counter claim, but I invite anyone to play devil's advocate, if that is indeed the case.

The floor is yours, gentlemen.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The Commandments of Intellectual Honesty

« on: January 12, 2018, 04:38:19 AM »

Work in progress. Felt like sharing. Feel free to add to it.

 - Find common ground with thy opponent.
 - Know thy logical fallacies.
 - Avoid thy logical fallacies.
 - Be not ashamed of being mistaken.
 - Admit fault readily and earnestly.
 - Don't just fling shit around until it sticks.

I know there's more. Just trying to add to some best practices that I think anyone should be able to agree with.

66

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

« on: January 12, 2018, 04:28:19 AM »

You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?

It was a joke. The substance of my argument followed immediately afterwards. Judging characteristics entirely unrelated to appearance by looking at things is not analogous to looking at things to figure out what they look like.

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X." In other words, saying "the flat horizon LOOKS flat, so the rest of the world IS flat," is not logically consistent for the same reason as the car analogy.

The car indeed "looks" fast. It "looks" like a sports car, and I don't know who's driving around a slow sports car in your neck of the woods, but to the rest of the world, most sports cars run fast.

It doesn't matter that looks can be deceiving either; this is not a contradiction of that principle. This is simply saying that we can make a reasonable assumption, based on the law of averages, that this car, when in motion, is most likely very fast.

It isn't until 6or1/2Dozen provides us with more information that the judgment by appearances falls apart. Up until that point, nobody would argue with you for saying "that car looks like it runs fast." The same principle plays out when you take a surface interpretation like zeteticism (haha "surface" interpretation, flat earth, zeteticism, puns) and start to add more and more information to the picture. It does not remain consistent, just like the first-glance and TOTALLY REASONABLE assertion that "this car looks fast."

That's the whole point. The problem with zeteticism is that it LACKS INFORMATION to arrive at consistent and sound conclusions, never mind the internal contradictions in a book like "Earth Not A Globe." When we're tethered to the earth and limited by our ability to use an elevator or climb a mountain, we only get to see so much. Likewise, even watching distant objects becomes unreliable until we add a telescope, or binoculars, and again give ourselves more information to go by.

This is the principle, outlined in step-by-step terms. This is the point 6or1/2Dozen was trying to make, if he doesn't mind me speaking on his behalf. This is the point you have to either agree is sensible and reasonable, or demonstrate why it isn't.

Is that more transparent? Are we communicating, or just talking past one another?

67

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

« on: January 12, 2018, 04:15:25 AM »

... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.

It appears to be stationary.

You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?

To say "this is a fast car" applies whether it's stationary or moving, in common parlance. I think you know that, but I could be mistaken. It's a little bewildering to think that you didn't, and you just made an honest mistake, but I can accept that.

What wouldn't be as forgivable is if you do know how that expression is used, and you're pretending to be incompetent, pretending not to know the difference, for what I don't know.

Sort of like the false equivalency you made earlier, reducing my carefully considered rebuttal to "nuh uh." Then, as now, I want to believe you're either mistaken or being too hasty, but I'm having trouble reconciling that desire.

In any case, do you want to expand, or is that honestly the reason you believe, in your heart of hearts, that that car doesn't "look" fast, as 6or1/2Dozen originally said?

68

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

« on: January 12, 2018, 04:03:19 AM »

This car looks fast:

First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.

... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.

69

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 12, 2018, 12:38:42 AM »

First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the

math."

They do when it comes to measuring the LAW of gravity.

That means science is not going to investigate further, they are done with it.

They do when it comes to the speed of light.

They do when it comes to 2 body/3 body orbital mechanics.

They do when it comes to Kepler Laws (notice again LAWS, not theory).

So, every CGI rendering will have to account for these LAWS and it will be readily apparent if these laws were utilized in the CGI creation.

Your argument is hinging on the fact that we call something a "law" versus a "theory" and vice versa.

You're making a similar mistake to what Tom Bishop did in another thread, flailing around terms like "empiricism" and "rationalization" irresponsibly. In the same post, I pointed out pretty cogently that he either doesn't know what those words mean or doesn't care to know, so long as it sounds good to his ears. You're doing something similar here with "law" and "theory."

You have at least a cursory grasp of what the terms mean in everyday speech, but your mistake is that you aren't using them in their scientific context. If you're going to criticize how scientists do science, you should at least try to represent them accurately.

Anything less demonstrates either confusion or a willingness to straw-man your opponent, leading to further confusion. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only incompetent and not malicious.

Gonna go off topic here for a few paragraphs, so you're welcome to  skip past this part and get to the rebuttal on science, I just wanna say a couple things.

...

I'm sincerely reluctant to characterize it in those terms - as in, you're either incompetent or malicious - but there's only so many ways to sugarcoat it. I generally prefer the term "mistaken" over "incompetent." Everybody makes mistakes. I can forgive mistakes. I can only hope you would be willing to do the same for me.

Either way, the point is, it’s difficult enough to tell positively when someone is incompetent or just playing the fool to be malicious (see: trolling, the classic definition). It's precisely BECAUSE of that difficulty that being incompetent is ALMOST as bad as being malicious. It is a COMPLETE waste of time and a DISSERVICE to BOTH parties and SOCIETY AT LARGE to have a conversation like this unless BOTH parties are being intellectually honest, and that means admitting fault, openly and without shame, from time to time.

Like I said, I can forgive someone for being incompetent, but someone owes me a FUCKING apology for wasting my time, and playing dumb in a vain denial of their own confusion and incompetence, if that is indeed the case. Yes, you can take this tone as accusatory. Like I'll say a little later in this reply, "I'm willing to see my suspicion proven wrong, but that depends on" your ability to be logically consistent and intellectually honest.

Whether I'm right or wrong about you, the take-away should be that NOTHING I've just said, other than accusing you personally of course, should be difficult for you to agree with. These should be the terms REGARDLESS of which side of the aisle you're on.

NOBODY should have to waste their FUCKING time on anyone who's just going to dig in their heels and fling shit and ignorance around like a God damn incontinent space monkey until something sticks... or abandon the thread when all else fails.

All I can do is try to practice what I preach for the sake of the discussion, because I can't control whether or not you and others adhere to the same principle. I'm asking you, if I'm wrong about you, to please show me I'm wrong. Please, lackey.

I want to believe that I'm wrong about you. I want to at least believe that you're only incompetent, like I said from the start. I just can't reconcile that desire with the way you conduct yourself in an open forum.

And that's not meant to brow-beat necessarily, or condescend to you from my ivory tower. I been there, dude. I been an ass-hat, refusing to budge. I still do it from time to time. I wager everyone does it, for one reason or another, at some point.

In my case, it's usually when a loved one tells me I need to stop being a fucking fatass, eat right, exercise, get a girlfriend, etc. Even if I deny their cogent criticisms - which at this point, other than lying about what I've eaten that day, I don't deny fault - I still admit to myself, in private, that they're right.

But you gotta at least try, dude. That shit ain't automatic.

If anything, the human brain instinctively refuses to admit when it is mistaken. Did you know that the brain exhibits the "fight or flight" response when presented with new information contradictory to the person's belief? It's a survival mechanism.

My point, in bringing up that little factoid, is that we're better than our instincts, and we gotta fight em' to even come close to something resembling "truth."

That's all I'm saying, dude.

...

I digress...

A scientific "law," for all intents and purposes, is supported by mathematics. It describes something that can be both measured and applied, successfully and repeatedly, to predictive calculations.

The "law" of gravity refers specifically to Newton's law of universal gravitation, which doesn't explain the HOW or the WHY, merely the WHAT, with respect to the force we call "gravity." All Newton did is to measure and comprehend the force itself with enough accuracy that it could be expressed mathematically and applied to predictive calculations. That's why we're able to accurately predict things like where artillery will land, or how fast objects accelerate in a vacuum. All of that is based on the mathematics. I don't know if you think the applied science is just guesswork or what, but it isn't; pretty much every practical model of applied science is first worked out mathematically before being tested in reality.

A scientific "theory," by contrast, is an attempt to compile a large body of observations - usually gathered by applying scientific LAW to specific sets of experiments - into a cohesive, logically consistent, scientifically accurate explanation of the HOW and WHY behind that body of observations.

Einstein's "theory" of general relativity brings "spacetime" into the picture. He THEORIZES that the REASON things fall the way they do has to do with the way gravity bends "spacetime" around massive objects, pulling nearby less massive objects inward. He's not trying to describe or measure WHAT gravity is but rather hypothesizing as to HOW and WHY the force we call "gravity" - the measurable, predictable force described in Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" - can even be there for us to measure in the first place.

That's a REALLY important distinction to grasp.

With only your surface understanding of the terms "law" and "theory," NONE of what you said about science contradicts anything I said. Laws can always be ameliorated and changed and reconciled with new information, or else they only exist within the boundaries of a given framework. Straight from Wikipedia, you can see a few examples for yourself:

Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

"Scientific Law," Overview, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

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.

With respect to how the stars would be plotted and predicted if indeed it works the way NASA claims, I agree with your final statement; we SHOULD be able to tell, by looking at the math, whether or not NASA's CGI calculations comport with scientific law in reality - whether it "does compute" or "does not compute."

My only objection is that I wasn't contesting that fact. I was responding to your positive claim that the maths "does not compute," which, as I said, IMPLIES that you have done the maths yourself or at least had someone explain it to you.

But you haven't done either of those things, have you?

2 + 2 = 5 "does not compute" unless we're talking about measurements on a non-linear scale, and you and I can see WHY 2 + 2 = 5 "does not compute" at a glance. Something more complex like a parabolic or sinusoidal function or a quadratic equation might take longer to comprehend, but we can still check the maths and see WHY a given function "does not compute." All I was asking you to do is walk us through, step by step, and show us how you came to that does not compute" conclusion. At the very least, you could have shown us your maths so that we could check it ourselves, like I had done with the "drop height" calculation. It's not complicated, just a simple good faith gesture.

I suspect that the reason you didn't simply copy-paste your calculations is because you haven't done anything of the sort, and you're just hand-waving about conspiracy. If you have, show us. If you haven't, then you're just hand-waving about conspiracy. That's all I was objecting to. I'm willing to see my suspicion proven wrong, but that depends on your willingness to open Notepad, load your saved calculations, and paste them here.

And I'm more than happy to show you any of the maths I have at my disposal, but it's generally considered good etiquette to wait until the first claim has been ferreted out before moving on to the next.

I never made a positive claim. What I did is ask you to substantiate your claim that the maths "does not compute." I didn't positively say that the maths proves one thing or another, or at least nothing to do with your claim. I only announced my skepticism that you had actually done the maths.

I then showed you an example of how that process works in an attempt at a good faith gesture. I thought if I showed you how one makes a mathematical statement of fact, demonstrates that statement mathematically, and then shows the maths to allow others to test it for themselves, you would pick up on that right away and respond in kind.

Instead of doing that, you made an irrelevant and totally inaccurate observation about why you think science is wrong because you don't ACTUALLY understand the difference between "law" and "theory." More importantly, as I already said before, you didn't even answer the question; how can you know that the maths "does not compute" unless you've run the numbers yourself or had someone explain it to you?

As soon as I said to you

Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."

that should have set off alarm bells in your mathematical mind that all blared "SHOW HIM THE MATHS" at a fever pitch.

As soon as your eyeballs scrolled across those words on your screen, proving me wrong - walking us through the maths, or at least showing your maths and your terms, as I did - really shouldn't be that difficult for someone who speaks as stridently as you do. In other words, you talk like you really know what you're talking about. One would think you could demonstrate the maths and why it's wrong as easily as you dismissed it.

I won't repeat myself again; you didn't even answer the question. Thinking, somehow, that you had done so, you then moved quickly along to quote my maths and foist upon me the burden of proof, eager to off load it from your own shoulders.

I feel compelled to remind you once more that I never made a positive claim. I asked you to show me the maths, then I demonstrated how someone does that by showing you ( A ) the "8 inches per mile squared" measurement is not correct, ( B ) what the correct calculation for curvature and specifically "drop height" looks like, and ( C ) how one demonstrates a mathematical statement by SHOWING THE MATHS.

You even had the gall to ask me to find and provide the NASA calculations for you when I asked you to demonstrate your affirmative statement about them. Surely you have to realize how transparent that makes your claim of "does not compute."

You could always simply concede that you HAVEN'T done the maths and you're ONLY hand-waving about conspiracy. That would be FAR more honest and worthy of respect and honor than the song and dance you've put on display here. Though, to be fair, the latter is a pretty low bar to clear.

This next section here is a bit confusing. I'd like you to expand on your responses, if you would, please:

Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?

Would have been done already.

What would have been done already?

Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.

So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.

Would have been done already.

What would have been done already? I'm not trying to fuck with you or anything; your answers here are really terse and vague and not helpful at all.

What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."

How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.

What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."

Give me the model and give me the inputs used.

I will investigate further.

I feel like this is proof positive that you haven't actually run the numbers, ever.

This is just me talking, but don't say things like "the math does not compute" unless you know for a fact that it doesn't. Maths aren't guesswork you can just fling shit at until it sticks, rather they are built on solid, logical principles and mechanics. If your arguments are any indication, you could stand to benefit from studying mathematics a bit more closely.

As far as your request that I go and fetch the formulae that you claimed "does not compute," we can spend a little time investigating together and do just that, but let's just be clear; you've never run the numbers and therefore you don't know whether or not they "does not compute.” What you’ve done is merely assert that they MUST not compute, because conspiracy. Again, if you had only come out and SAID THAT, rather than say something you KNOW isn’t true, that would be way more honest and respectable than saying something like "it does not compute" when in fact you have no idea one way or the other.

For someone who likes to lay into people who don't provide direct proof for their assertions, you seem to follow a "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy when it comes to having your own assertions challenged.

It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.

And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.

Here are a few examples I worked out the other day:

...

Have at it.

Graph it out and let me look at it.

I don't really have access to a graphing simulator at the moment, though I'd be willing to do the legwork if that's what you insist on. Instead, I can show you an example image, straight from the source of the method in question.



You can also play with the virtual calculator on GitHub, here:

Earth Curve Calculator

How would your math translate to this picture?

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.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.

« on: January 11, 2018, 10:28:40 PM »

Yes, if both parties are adhering to the same problem, without the interference of personality, then the debate is not futile, but conclusive.

However until this stability can be assured, the Flat vs Round debate is a futile show of personalities, with both sides presenting theories that are incompatible with the other.


I suppose that rather than debate and try to sway each other to one side, propositions and scientific theory could be made to enhance and grow each persons perspective and knowledge of the topic.

That way, there is no 'burden of proof' because everyone is allowed to believe what they want.

I am of the opinion that all any one person can do to rectify this problem is serve as a good example and be consistent, but propositions and scientific theory depend on all parties having the same comprehension of both science and reason. I can no more instill in someone else the desire to be scientifically literate than I can instill in them the desire to be intellectually honest. All I can do is try to serve as a good example.

71

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

« on: January 11, 2018, 10:22:40 PM »

You, like many others, have provided no real evidence to your assertion, whereas Rowbotham does provide evidence, and does conduct a study on these matters. If you are not going to respond with evidence, you may as well not respond at all.

Hitchen's Razor asserts:

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

I defer to what I said at the top of the thread:

It isn't so much just a matter of providing "proof" so much as comparing the two models to things that we can measure in reality and gauging how many of our observations are consistent or inconsistent with each.

Flat earth model isn't consistent with reality. On first glance, it may seem that way, but there's always something hidden from the limited perspective we have as 6-foot tall upright hominids with binocular vision. We have a mountain of circumstantial evidence that confirms this.

Try to think of it in those terms instead.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.

« on: January 11, 2018, 09:46:14 PM »

I understand where you are coming from. No, there is no box, and the experiment is the same.

I guess what it boils down to is the capability to accept, understand and the accumulative knowledge/ experience of the two whom conduct the experiment.
They may have different views or perspectives within the same experiment, due to the unpredictable, and somewhat spontaneous nature of the human mind when it is forced to take part in decision making, in the face of past experiences.
If one does not agree or accept the others' analysis, they must retry and debate until a conclusion is made.

The dual nature of all particles makes the conclusion that, while appearing to be stable and concrete, the Earth (or anything) is not any particular shape. Whatever the object, it inhibits wave like properties in a probable position. The Earth is definitively round, but probabilitivley, on an atomic level, it is not. 

If the cat was dead, but then revived, it was always alive.
But if the cat dies, forever, it was not never alive, but once was living.

Let me just cut through the fat and say that all of those niggling problems that come up as a result of two people refusing to agree with one another ceases to be a problem if we assume both parties are adhering to intellectually honest best practices. What do you think?

73

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

« on: January 11, 2018, 08:35:20 PM »

Rebuttal: The sun doesn’t shrink into the “vanishing point,” it sinks under the horizon. You can see this plainly by looking with a pair of protective glasses to compensate for the retina-roasting glare. You will clearly see a circle sink into the sea.

So your rebuttal boils down to "nuh uh, that's wrong!!!"

That's quite possibly a new low for newcomers here.

That hardly seems like a fair comparison.

If it boiled down to "nuh uh, that's wrong," there would be no alternative explanation provided, never mind explaining to you how, specifically, you can verify the explanation yourself. There would be no information whatsoever beyond the initial objection. Clearly there is, so I don't see how you can reduce that to "nuh uh, that's wrong" and do it with a straight face. That simply isn't fair or accurate.

Now, that is low if you know I'm right and you made this false equivalency intentionally. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being reactionary, or skimming my rebuttal.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.

« on: January 11, 2018, 08:13:33 PM »

Take it this way,...   

Light is both a wave and a particle.

Two people are experimenting the behaviors of light, one uses a vacuum and a rotatable panel, the other uses a solid medium.

One can conclude that light is a particle, and the other a wave - they both are right, yet both are wrong.

And until another comes along and discovers the probability wave and dual properties of light, it will stay this way.

The cat may be dying.

Completely understand and comprehend the principle you're describing. It doesn't work out when the two researchers are conducting the same experiment.

In your analogy, flat earthers and globe tards are looking at two different boxes (two different experiments, in your case). They each conclude differently about the cat inside the box. The problem with that analogy is that the earth is that it is NOT obscured from either party and we are NOT conducting separate experiments and observations. Rather, the earth is one cat, there is no box, and both researchers are standing in the same "room," conducting the same experiments together.

Even if these two are separated by miles, they're still standing in the same metaphorical "room" and looking at the same thing (the earth). Do you understand my objection more clearly? Unless you think I'm misunderstanding you, I think it's the other way around. Just trying to come to an agreement or at least see how we each came to our conclusions.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.

« on: January 11, 2018, 07:17:34 PM »

I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

I also know the Earth to be round, and sorry if it is confusing, but the functionalities of the universe really is an odd thing.

It surely and truly is an odd thing. All I’m saying, with respect to relativity, perspective, and the act of observation, is that it isn’t rational to say that two people can observe the same thing, draw two competing conclusions, and each be simultaneously right and wrong.

If we remove Schrödinger's cat from the box, it’s either alive or dead. With the earth, there is no box obscuring it to begin with - a flat earther and a globe tard can both observe the earth simultaneously.

With respect to a binary like “flat/round” or “alive/dead,” in the cat’s case, one person may observe that the cat is alive, and one person may observe that the cat is dead. They can’t both be correct once the cat is out of the box. It is the same with the earth.

We share an objective reality in spite of our unique, subjective, first person experience. There’s a lot about the universe that we don’t yet understand, and certainly quantum theory throws a “Schrödinger’s wrench” into general relativity, if you follow my meaning, but I’m not yet comfortable enough with either model to make proclamations like yours with respect to how we define objective reality. We don’t yet know enough about either model to reconcile the two, but in the meantime, our limited perspective as hominids is most compatible and consistent with general relativity. There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon objectivity and throw the objective baby out with the Einsteinian bathwater.

76

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 11, 2018, 04:08:14 AM »

For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com .

And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey

Can't tell if he's trolling or just thick. One is forgivable, within reason.

77

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

« on: January 11, 2018, 03:00:02 AM »

Gonna add this here since I didn't see it when I was writing my reply to your original post.

We are Empiricists. We make direct conclusions from the world. The Round Earthers are Rationalists. The model is rationalized into existence. "Um, well, a really big ball would look flat..." That is a rationalization against empirical reality, not evidence.

Except it's not, and neither your definition of "empirical reality" nor "rationalists" is accurate. For it to be empirical reality, it would have to be consistent with everything we observe in empirical reality. It isn't, and I can demonstrate why just as soon as you put forward either A ) Your evidence for a flat earth, or B ) Your objections to evidence for a globe earth WITHOUT invoking conspiracy.

It's not rationalization either. People rationalize after the fact, usually in order to explain or excuse contradictions so that they become easier to ignore. The horizon being flat to our eyes neither contradicts the globe model nor confirms the flat model. In reality, this ONE aspect would be consistent with both models. But, just like the example with the lighter, this example needs more information.

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. Scrutinizing further, we can talk about things like why you can't see France from New York for example, or why objects dip past the horizon, but the objection about the horizon itself is not a contradiction of the globe model. You don't have to "believe" it in order to comprehend how it works once you have enough information added to the equation.

Rationalization is only a problem when you're trying to rationalize something that contradicts your model, like when flat earthers try to rationalize the curvature of the earth by pretending that distant objects disappearing can be explained by the vanishing point.

I explained why THAT particular objection isn't valid in another thread, and we can get to that in a minute, but in the meantime, let's be 100% clear about the meaning of words like "empiricism" and "rationalization" and not just fling them around like our own dung at the zoo. I think we'd both like to believe we're better than that.

This is where the conversation starts. Now it is on you to post your evidence.

The terms in the original post are quite clear:

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model...

... I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation... [For] the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

To be fair, the above is an edit of the original post, but I haven't changed it radically by any stretch. Go and check it yourself and tell me if you have any objections.

The simple fact of the matter is that we're not beginning with me making a truth claim, we're beginning with an invitation from me for you to try and demonstrate and/or defend your model with a few caveats:

1 ) You cannot invoke conspiracy.

2 ) I cannot use NASA or other government space agencies in citations of photographic and video evidence.

THIS is where the conversation begins.

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.

78

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

« on: January 11, 2018, 02:37:31 AM »

And sorry for the shitty edits and citations. I’m working on cleaning it up... bear with me I’m doing this on a 5-inch touch screen lol

79

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

« on: January 11, 2018, 02:32:22 AM »

I gave you a scientific observation.

Yeah. You’re responding to an edit I made before I read that observation - looking out the window and so forth.

Your initial response - the one the edit was responding to - is quoted in that same post, so I think you knew what I was talking about, unless you aren’t reading.

Lets clear up that confusion right now for the sake of other readers and move on.

If we are looking at a lighter, then we must conclude that it is a lighter. It is actually the burden of the naysayers who are saying that the lighter is actually something else in disguise who will have to show otherwise.

You’re half right.

The first part, you’re correct. It’s an incomplete analogy.

If I’m NASA, and the lighter is the globe earth, and you refuse to believe it’s there, you’re under no obligation to just take my word for it. Nobody would blame you for saying something like, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” That’s only rational. Here’s the problem.

If you just stop there, and don’t add more information to the analogy, it’s reasonable for you to at least take the agnostic position - “I don’t know/I’ll believe it when I see it” - as you presently do. Frankly, that bolded half of the quote is more solipsism than agnosticism, but I digress...

With nothing but you, me, and my claim about a lighter, as I said, you’re under no obligation to believe me.

But just like globe earth, or any claim for that matter, if you just stop at the claim, you aren’t getting the full picture.

How might your opinion about the lighter change, for instance, if you and I are co-workers, and you’ve seen me smoking, and you’ve smelled the ash and the tar on me when I come back from breaks, and you hear me coughing of early onset emphysema, and you know my other smoker friends? Bear in mind; you still have never actually seen me use or show the lighter, you only have my claim and the circumstantial evidence... also I don’t smoke in real life, but this is just a thought experiment, I’m a smoker and we’re co-workers in it, work with me.

Add to this that there are other people in the office who know both of us. They also know what you know because they’ve seen it and smelled it and heard it as well. They’re also aware that I say there’s a lighter in my pocket, and most of them believe it. You know this because they’ve told you so; you still haven’t seen the lighter with your own eyes.

Once again, you're still under no obligation to believe my positive claim about a lighter in my pocket. However, once we add the context of all of this circumstantial evidence, suddenly your position of “I’ll believe it when I see it" doesn't seem quite as rational as it did before we took a look at all the evidence.

After we finally have a complete picture, or at least a more complete picture than we had previously, do you still feel as certain in your disbelief - or at the very least, agnostic dismissal - of my claim that there’s a lighter in my pocket? What do you think your odds are of being correct if you say I’m wrong, versus simply taking my word for it?

Of course, I could always be lying, but unless we’re two friends and I’m playing perhaps the lamest April Fools joke ever, you’re going to start grasping at straws and alleging all kinds of things to try and rationalize some kind of motive, so you can then ascribe it to me as an post-rational explanation for wanting to lie about the lighter. At that point, we’re treading down the path of conspiratorial thinking. I have plenty to say on that subject as well, but as I said, that’s not the topic of this thread. More importantly, it’s completely irrelevant to the question of how we compare and contrast the two models against reality and each other - or the evidence that there's a lighter in my pocket, versus a grenade, for that matter.

Again, you can apply this frame of thinking to just about ANY truth claim. Clearly we believe things even if we don’t have direct proof in front of our eyes, and that’s not irrational.

So I say again, you’re right with respect to my analogy in its original form... but you’re wrong for stopping there, just as you’re wrong for simply stopping at the authoritative claim about the globe model.

Your second part about the burden of proof is also half right.

In general, anyone making any claim, positive or negative, carries a burden of proof. It’s just considered good etiquette to not force someone else into making a positive claim before the first one has been fully vetted.

When you say, “The earth IS a flat, motionless plane in a dome,” and I say, “The earth IS NOT a flat, motionless plane in a dome,” those are two competing claims. The former is positive, the latter negative - naysayers, etc.. At that point, you don’t have to DISPROVE globe earth, you just have to PROVE flat earth. Likewise, I don’t have to PROVE globe earth, I just have to DISPROVE flat earth.

When you make a positive claim, your job is to present evidence supporting your hypothesis. My job, by contrast, is to point out inconsistencies, incongruencies, and other things that complicate or otherwise cast doubt on your hypothesis. You may object to my objections and so on, but the idea is - at least in an HONEST dialogue - I am only playing the role of skeptic so that we can challenge the strength of your claim. Likewise, we may switch roles to challenge the strength of my claims, and so on. In that process, we may in fact go over some information that IMPLIES the inverse - me making the positive claim and you negative, or vice versa - but this is incidental and unavoidable in a binary polar dichotomy, and so irrelevant to the initial claim.

Like I said, it's simply considered good etiquette to observe the initial positive-negative dichotomy and do things one at a time, not turn the tables on a dime in a vain attempt to trip up your opponent. You're free to ignore that just as readily as you are to deny the globe earth model.

But, in general, when you make a claim, you should stick to providing supporting evidence until it has all been ferreted out and fitfully scrutinized. That only makes sense for the sake of having a structured, productive conversation. To turn around and say to your opponent, “Well tell me why the earth IS a round, oblate sphere spinning on its axis in a void, Mr. Smarty Pants,” would be nothing short of premature (and immature, in that context and most times this writer has observed people fail to avoid this particular fallacy).

So again, you’re right when you say that the burden of proof rests on the naysayers... you’re wrong to forget that it rests first on the proclaimers.

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.

If I’m correct, this aspect of the analogy which you’ve added is, I’m afraid, nothing to do with presenting evidence that the earth IS a flat, motionless plane beneath a dome, nor is it defending against objections that it IS NOT.

And caveat: I have no idea what YOU personally believe about the flat earth model, I just used those descriptions as an example.

Would you like to move on to a discussion about your observations regarding the horizon?

80

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

« on: January 11, 2018, 01:18:36 AM »

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

Sorry for the delayed edit. I’ll respond to this and anything else you want to say, if you want to respond to my edits in the last reply.