Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2014, 04:05:50 PM »
So I guess I have to repeat the question: What do FEers mean by "theory"?
You don't need to repeat it, you need to make it coherent. As it stands, your question, combined with the premises you present, introduces a contradiction. If you really want to beg the question, be my guest, but I wouldn't expect anyone here entertaining it for too long.

After all, a hot dog isn't a dog at all. I knew those NYC vendors left biology out of their trade, those ignorant bastards, them.
Please do tell me the contradiction I introduced. I asked "What do FEers mean by "theory". I did get an answer from jrpa. Is he wrong?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2014, 04:23:16 PM »
I asked "What do FEers mean by "theory".
And then rambled on about "conspiracy theory", which is defined separately in English. That is a problem. You're not asking what we mean by "theory", you're asking what we mean by "conspiracy theory" and then using it as if it said anything about other contexts in which "theory" may be used by FE'ers.

I did get an answer from jroa. Is he wrong?
Within the context of "conspiracy theory", he is correct. Your failure to acknowledge the context is very apparent in your responses. Because you keep acting like there can only be one meaning of "theory", your question is incoherent. Once you fixed that, you might get an answer of actual value. Until then, all you can do is play with fallacies along the lines of:

After all, a hot dog isn't a dog at all. I knew those NYC vendors left biology out of their trade, those ignorant bastards, them.

Rather than ask which one certain people use and dont use, I find it to be more useful to ask that people do not equivocate on the word.
Fair enough, but I don't think any of us are going to waste our time introducing a better alternative to the well-understood and commonly-accepted "conspiracy theory". We're already too busy opposing the mainstream about the shape of the Earth, inventing new language constructs (beyond absolute necessity) would be pushing it too far.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 04:28:12 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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2014, 04:41:13 PM »
I asked "What do FEers mean by "theory".
And then rambled on about "conspiracy theory", which is defined separately in English. That is a problem. You're not asking what we mean by "theory", you're asking what we mean by "conspiracy theory" and then using it as if it said anything about other contexts in which "theory" may be used by FE'ers.
SO you can't point to a contradiction, as I expected.

Where did I ramble on about "conspiracy theory"? Where did I even ask what FEer mean by "conspiracy theory"? Surely FE's conspiracy is an inherent part of FET. It's a great example that shows FET is not a scientific theory (as the article describes). That "theory" appears in the phrase "conspiracy theory" does not introduce a contradiction.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5646
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2014, 04:55:47 PM »
Fair enough, but I don't think any of us are going to waste our time introducing a better alternative to the well-understood and commonly-accepted "conspiracy theory". We're already too busy opposing the mainstream about the shape of the Earth, inventing new language constructs (beyond absolute necessity) would be pushing it too far.

Agreed.  It is pretty pedantic to harp on the contextual definition of theory in the case of "conspiracy theory".
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2014, 05:05:32 PM »
Agreed.  It is pretty pedantic to harp on the contextual definition of theory in the case of "conspiracy theory".
It's not just pedantic. It's an active attempt to inhibit the communicative power (and the very purpose) of language.

Please do tell me the contradiction I introduced.
Premise 1: A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory. (from dictionary definitions of the two terms)
Premise 2: A conspiracy theory is presumed to be a subset of theories. (introduced by yourself)
Premise 3: All theories are scientific theories. (introduced by yourself and the blog post you linked to)

It is my assumption that your understanding of elementary set theory will help you finish the thought process, but let me know if you need help.
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2014, 05:21:14 PM »

Please do tell me the contradiction I introduced.
Premise 1: A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory. (from dictionary definitions of the two terms)
Premise 2: A conspiracy theory is presumed to be a subset of theories. (introduced by yourself)
Premise 3: All theories are scientific theories. (introduced by yourself and the blog post you linked to)

It is my assumption that your understanding of elementary set theory will help you finish the thought process, but let me know if you need help.
Thanks for the offer. Yes, I need help. Where did I contend Premise 1, 2 and 3? Please do quote me. Indeed the reference states quite the opposite of what you contend: "When most people use the word theory, they're talking about a hunch or guess."

I suspect that for Premise 2, you're making a generalization error. I do content that FET's conspiracy is inherent.

For Premise 3, I specifically asked for FEers' position of their use of the word "theory", again quite the opposition of your contention.

The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Shmeggley

  • *
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2014, 05:37:58 PM »
Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.


That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.
Well said. Keep up the good work.

@Thork and Vx: Science is fine with "everything" could be wrong. Rowbotham and the other zetetics though insist that their conclusions are beyond contradiction. Whether something could be wrong does not make it a theory. Science considers everything open to review, revision, and reconsideration. That's a philosophy Rowbotham and the rest of the zetetics would do well to embrace.

Exactly. "Everything you know could be wrong" is just empty rhetoric. Show me how what I know is wrong, and provide a better explanation. Anything less is just smug pseudoscientific posturing.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2014, 05:46:23 PM »
You didn't contend Premise 1. Premise 1 exists outside of your claims, and is the only premise in the mix that holds some legitimacy. You could know that if you had bothered reading my post, as I already explained where it comes from.

Premise 2 comes directly from your claims. You first ask:
Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?

to then conclude from the answer that:
So FEers don't use the word as the referenced article suggests they should.

You assume that "theory" and "conspiracy theory" intrinsically share the same context. Since you tried describing the latter in terms of the former, you contended that you'd like to interpret it as a subset. Premise 2 stated.

Premise 3 comes directly from the post linked in the OP, which claims that other uses of the term "theory" are "wrong".

The fact that you keep mixing your questions up and blending the contexts together works against your claims here, not for them. Do try to keep up.

The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists in the context of "conspiracy theory".
Fixed for coherence. But even then, you're still wrong. I've already demonstrated that "conspiracy theory" is used in exactly the same fashion by FE'ers as other scientists, by way of providing you with a long list of papers that use that term in the same meaning.
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2014, 05:56:34 PM »
You didn't contend Premise 1. Premise 1 exists outside of your claims, and is the only premise in the mix that holds some legitimacy. You could know that if you had bothered reading my post, as I already explained where it comes from.

Premise 2 comes directly from your claims. You first ask:
Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?

to then conclude from the answer that:
So FEers don't use the word as the referenced article suggests they should.

You assume that "theory" and "conspiracy theory" intrinsically share the same context. Since you tried describing the latter in terms of the former, you contended that you'd like to interpret it as a subset. Premise 2 stated.

Premise 3 comes directly from the post linked in the OP, which claims that other uses of the term "theory" are "wrong".

The fact that you keep mixing your questions up and blending the contexts together works against your claims here, not for them. Do try to keep up.

The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists in the context of "conspiracy theory".
Fixed for coherence. But even then, you're still wrong. I've already demonstrated that "conspiracy theory" is used in exactly the same fashion by FE'ers as other scientists, by way of providing you with a long list of papers that use that term in the same meaning.
Let me just make a couple of observations.
1) Asking a question is not introducing a contradiction.
2) I do not agree with your selection of the definition in Premise 1.
3) jroa did not set the context of "conspiracy theory". Indeed his reference is to just "theory".
4) If FET includes a conspiracy, then it is not, accordingly to the Mental Floss article, a theory as a scientist would use the term. I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy. If you need help understanding the article's point about the requirement that a theory be testable, let me know. If you believe that FET's conspiracy is testable, then please list a test that FEers could run that would show that there is no conspiracy.
5) Summarizing another post is not introducing a contradiction. The other poster introduced the point. Do keep up.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2014, 06:03:57 PM »
1) Asking a question is not introducing a contradiction.
Not intrinsically, no. You both asked a question and introduced a contradiction - the two were only loosely related. Your fallacy here is very similar to the original one, go figure.

2) I do not agree with your selection of the definition in Premise 1.
Yes, the fact that you disagree with lexicographers is a large part of the problem here. We also already commented on that. Please see:

Agreed.  It is pretty pedantic to harp on the contextual definition of theory in the case of "conspiracy theory".
It's not just pedantic. It's an active attempt to inhibit the communicative power (and the very purpose) of language.

3) jroa did not set the context of "conspiracy theory".
He didn't need to, you already set the context in the OP.

I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.

5) Summarizing another post is not introducing a contradiction.
Correct. In line with your previous mistakes, you both (incorrectly) summarised a post and introduced a contradiction, but for some reason you now try to create a false dichotomy between those events. The connection between the two was there, but it wasn't essential to your issue.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 06:08:12 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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2014, 06:15:08 PM »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2014, 06:16:55 PM »
Okay:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179
You're doing this again? Remember when you couldn't stop rambling about how I "claimed" there were two Australias? I hope that this is just an act and that humour really isn't lost on you that often.
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2014, 06:59:32 PM »
Okay:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1761.msg37179#msg37179
You're doing this again? Remember when you couldn't stop rambling about how I "claimed" there were two Australias? I hope that this is just an act and that humour really isn't lost on you that often.
So you want to dodge your post claiming "humor". How droll. Fortunately, the Wiki serves just fine here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2014, 07:30:14 PM »
So you want to dodge your post claiming "humor". How droll.
No,  I claimed humour. I also signposted it quite clearly in the very post you referenced, long before there was anything to "dodge".

Fortunately, the Wiki serves just fine here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Where in that Wiki page do I personally state that a conspiracy theory is part of FET?
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2014, 07:51:03 PM »
So you want to dodge your post claiming "humor". How droll.
No,  I claimed humour. I also signposted it quite clearly in the very post you referenced, long before there was anything to "dodge".

Fortunately, the Wiki serves just fine here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Where in that Wiki page do I personally state that a conspiracy theory is part of FET?
I assail FET for inherently including the Conspiracy and thereby falling outside of Science. Your personal statements are irrelevant.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2014, 08:24:08 PM »
Your personal statements are irrelevant.
They are quite relevant to the claim you made, and to the request you claim to be fulfilling.

I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.


Okay [...]

Why are you finding it so difficult to remain consistent with yourself? Are there multiple people using your account, not fully aware of one another's actions?
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2014, 08:31:20 PM »
Your personal statements are irrelevant.
They are quite relevant to the claim you made, and to the request you claim to be fulfilling.

I think you've posted clearly that FET includes a conspiracy.
Please quote me on that.


Okay [...]

Why are you finding it so difficult to remain consistent with yourself? Are there multiple people using your account, not fully aware of one another's actions?
I see no need to allow your alleged "signposting" with the comparative "more serious" vice "serious" to further derail the thread. My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.

Please feel free to pat yourself on the back over your use of the humor defense.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2014, 08:35:59 PM »
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 08:38:14 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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2014, 09:01:53 PM »
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
I'll accept "FET is not science". Thanks.

Why would anyone argue that there is "something that's" sufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth? Are you claiming that you have that something? Have your read Godel's works on the topic?

ETF: PP's wish to avoid objective science and truth.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 09:59:32 PM by Gulliver »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2014, 09:21:48 PM »
Once again you insist on applying inappropriate contexts. I am not talking about an "objective" Truth as in, say, arguments derived from mathematical Platonism. I'm talking about the truth (note the lower-case spelling, which you erroneously tried to correct) as it is used in common parlance.
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*