*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2014, 01:55:28 PM »
If I can't see all of the US at once, then I am taking other peoples' word of the shape of it.  Can we agree on this?
You take other people's word for lots of things.  Are you saying that everyone could be lying about everything that you can't see for yourself?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2014, 01:58:34 PM »
markjo, it is probably too early for you to be drinking, so I can understand you being in a bad mood.  Where did I say everyone is lying?  What is your point, in fact? 

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #42 on: June 04, 2014, 02:38:02 PM »
What is your point, in fact? 

You take other people's word for lots of things.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2014, 02:41:41 PM »
markjo, it is probably too early for you to be drinking, so I can understand you being in a bad mood. 
What makes you think that I'm in a bad mood?  ???

What is your point, in fact?
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 02:43:28 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9814
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2014, 04:06:28 PM »
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.
Walking into the Flat Earth Society and telling us to trust other people's experience on the shape of the Earth would be like walking into a church filled with creationists and telling them to trust scientists on the matter of evolution (or vice-versa, going to a university and trying to convince the biology professors there that evolution is a hoax and they should trust creation science instead). It doesn't matter how right you think you are, or even how right you actually are, it simply won't work.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2014, 05:08:50 PM »
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth.  Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.
Walking into the Flat Earth Society and telling us to trust other people's experience on the shape of the Earth would be like walking into a church filled with creationists and telling them to trust scientists on the matter of evolution (or vice-versa, going to a university and trying to convince the biology professors there that evolution is a hoax and they should trust creation science instead). It doesn't matter how right you think you are, or even how right you actually are, it simply won't work.

But you guys do it -all- the time.  Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement. 
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9814
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2014, 06:05:27 PM »
But you guys do it -all- the time.  Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement.
No, we don't. We don't invade mainstream science forums and bother everyone with BLE.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2014, 06:13:33 PM »
But you guys do it -all- the time.  Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement.
No, we don't. We don't invade mainstream science forums and bother everyone with BLE.

Fair enough, I was speaking to FEers taking others word for things they have not personally experienced, but that was obviously not the thrust of what you wrote.  You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand.  Got it.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9814
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2014, 06:23:10 PM »
You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand.  Got it.
No, I'm saying that if you come to the Flat Earth Society and say "the Earth is round, trust <someone> on that one" (and make it the central point of your argument that <someone> said this), you're not going to convince anyone. This will happen regardless of the actual shape of the Earth. You're entering a group with a certain belief, telling them their belief is wrong, and demanding that they take your word for it.

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

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

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

It takes more than a demand that we trust someone to change one's fundamental views. We won't "dismiss [other views] out of hand", but we won't believe them just because you say that sometimes it's necessary to trust others. That'd be insane.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 06:27:48 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2014, 06:54:24 PM »
You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand.  Got it.
No, I'm saying that if you come to the Flat Earth Society and say "the Earth is round, trust <someone> on that one" (and make it the central point of your argument that <someone> said this), you're not going to convince anyone. This will happen regardless of the actual shape of the Earth. You're entering a group with a certain belief, telling them their belief is wrong, and demanding that they take your word for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the illumination.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #50 on: July 04, 2014, 04:45:15 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set link=topic=1242.msg31513#msg31513

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

No one?
Even given the case, do you need personal information to make a theory more valid?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2014, 07:29:50 PM »
No but someone with an in depth technical background in Astronomy, Physics or Geodesy would have no trouble demolishing someone like Tom Bishop in a debate. On the other FES site there was an astronomer named Major Twang who embarrassed FEers in debates on the regular until he got too bored.

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

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

And so on...
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2014, 08:04:25 PM »
No but someone with an in depth technical background in Astronomy, Physics or Geodesy would have no trouble demolishing someone like Tom Bishop in a debate. On the other FES site there was an astronomer named Major Twang who embarrassed FEers in debates on the regular until he got too bored.

You mean something like this?