Sunrises, satellites, eclipses and the motive behind the conspiracy.

Statements ? evidence. If anyone wants to dispute this, they are welcome to present an argument that actually addresses the point.

If that were true, then there is no such thing as evidence.  How could you possibly present evidence other than in statement form?  Sure, statements about anything can be lies, but it is surely unreasonable to insist that no statements can be accepted as evidence.

I've yet to find one predicting where Bigfoot could be seen. You never know however, in Failmore's solipsistic mind, one probably does exist.

Let's not go overboard.  It is clear that Wilmore doubts the existence of Bigfoot as much as any of us.  Those doubts are perfectly rational.  Let's give him some credit and respect for those doubts.  While there may be some tiny possibility that Bigfoot does indeed exist, I think that most rational people will acknowledge that it is a very tiny possibility indeed.  

It would be interesting, and exciting, though, to find solid evidence that there really is such a thing.  We still occasionally discover large, previously unknown species of animals, and many thousands of previously unknown, small species of animals and plants are discovered every year.

Or perhaps you are missing my point entirely, as usual.


Statements ? evidence. If anyone wants to dispute this, they are welcome to present an argument that actually addresses the point.

And you are missing my point, as usual, which is that some statements are worth a hell of a lot more than others because the probability of them being a lie is lower and the chance of someone else being able to verify them is greater.

Whereas you want to treat all statements as equal in probability.
"I went to Scotland for two weeks and it rained every day" might be true or it might be a lie.
"I went to the Kalahari Desert for two weeks and it rained every day" might be true or it might be a lie.
Based entirely on the probability of rain in those areas, one of those statements is more likely to be true than the other.
You make no account of things like that. Fail.

Well said, TD (as usual)!

These arguments are getting more and more ridiculous as they go on. "Satellites are too small to see from earth", "You have no evidence you've seen them." For one thing, doesn't flat earth theory mean satellites can't exist in the first place, and for another thing, it's incredible that you can just laugh in the face of several thousand years of scientific research proving that the earth is flat and then claim that being able to see satellites is ridiculous.

SUKH YOU!

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 07, 2010, 12:20:19 PM

Or perhaps you are missing my point entirely, as usual.


Statements ? evidence. If anyone wants to dispute this, they are welcome to present an argument that actually addresses the point.

And you are missing my point, as usual, which is that some statements are worth a hell of a lot more than others because the probability of them being a lie is lower and the chance of someone else being able to verify them is greater.

Whereas you want to treat all statements as equal in probability.
"I went to Scotland for two weeks and it rained every day" might be true or it might be a lie.
"I went to the Kalahari Desert for two weeks and it rained every day" might be true or it might be a lie.
Based entirely on the probability of rain in those areas, one of those statements is more likely to be true than the other.
You make no account of things like that. Fail.

Your reasoning is entirely circular. Observe:


You guage the probability of a statement's veracity on whether or not it accords with what you already believe, and you then use that statement as evidence that what you believe is true. When asked why you believe this statement, you reply that you do so because it accords with what you conisder likely (i.e. what you already believe). Round and round.


Tell me, I'm intrigued by the idea of adopting a hugely arrogant persona - do I say "fail" now, or should I have done it earlier?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 07, 2010, 04:15:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 07, 2010, 12:20:19 PM

Or perhaps you are missing my point entirely, as usual.


Statements ? evidence. If anyone wants to dispute this, they are welcome to present an argument that actually addresses the point.

And you are missing my point, as usual, which is that some statements are worth a hell of a lot more than others because the probability of them being a lie is lower and the chance of someone else being able to verify them is greater.

Whereas you want to treat all statements as equal in probability.
"I went to Scotland for two weeks and it rained every day" might be true or it might be a lie.
"I went to the Kalahari Desert for two weeks and it rained every day" might be true or it might be a lie.
Based entirely on the probability of rain in those areas, one of those statements is more likely to be true than the other.
You make no account of things like that. Fail.

Your reasoning is entirely circular. Observe:


You guage the probability of a statement's veracity on whether or not it accords with what you already believe, and you then use that statement as evidence that what you believe is true. When asked why you believe this statement, you reply that you do so because it accords with what you conisder likely (i.e. what you already believe). Round and round.


Tell me, I'm intrigued by the idea of adopting a hugely arrogant persona - do I say "fail" now, or should I have done it earlier?

I'm personally intrigued by the fact that you can deny blindingly obvious evidence and convince yourself of the fact that the word is flat, but there you go.

Fail.

I like the way Wilmore blusters that my example is circular reasoning, yet if one were to go and look at weather records for the Kalahari and Scotland it would show real life agrees with me. Maybe real life uses circular reasoning, huh?
(BTW weather records are what we call "data", which is something different from "belief").

Two cloudy nights... stupid tropical country.

Hopefully tonight will be clean.

Quote from: preco on February 07, 2010, 08:52:34 AM

I've yet to find one predicting where Bigfoot could be seen. You never know however, in Failmore's solipsistic mind, one probably does exist.

Let's not go overboard.  It is clear that Wilmore doubts the existence of Bigfoot as much as any of us.  Those doubts are perfectly rational.  Let's give him some credit and respect for those doubts.  While there may be some tiny possibility that Bigfoot does indeed exist, I think that most rational people will acknowledge that it is a very tiny possibility indeed.  

It would be interesting, and exciting, though, to find solid evidence that there really is such a thing.  We still occasionally discover large, previously unknown species of animals, and many thousands of previously unknown, small species of animals and plants are discovered every year.

Viking,

You've totally missed the whole context of my post. Read the whole thing again.

I like the way Wilmore blusters that my example is circular reasoning, yet if one were to go and look at weather records for the Kalahari and Scotland it would show real life agrees with me. Maybe real life uses circular reasoning, huh?

Thermal Detonator implying that circular reasoning is the way to go. This explains a great deal.

(BTW weather records are what we call "data", which is something different from "belief").

We weren't discussing data. We weren't even discussing statements supported by data. We were discussing unsupported statements.


Based on your response, I consider this matter settled.

Oh, and it's spelled "gauge" not "guage".

Sorry about the typo, I hope you don't lose too much sleep over it.


Oh, and it's spelt "I have nothing meaningful to say", not "fail".

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 08, 2010, 04:49:20 AM

I like the way Wilmore blusters that my example is circular reasoning, yet if one were to go and look at weather records for the Kalahari and Scotland it would show real life agrees with me. Maybe real life uses circular reasoning, huh?

Thermal Detonator implying that circular reasoning is the way to go. This explains a great deal.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 08, 2010, 04:49:20 AM

(BTW weather records are what we call "data", which is something different from "belief").

We weren't discussing data. We weren't even discussing statements supported by data. We were discussing unsupported statements.


Based on your response, I consider this matter settled.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 08, 2010, 04:10:20 AM

Oh, and it's spelled "gauge" not "guage".

Sorry about the typo, I hope you don't lose too much sleep over it.


Oh, and it's spelt "I have nothing meaningful to say", not "fail".

You don't sound like you have anything to say, either.

It's true that his statements are backed up with real evidence, as simple Google searches would suggest. He doesn't have to post it because, as you've said to me before, we have no reason to hold your hand through something like this.

Unsupported statements are related to statements supported with data, considering he is defending himself.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on February 07, 2010, 03:45:09 PM

Quote from: preco on February 07, 2010, 08:52:34 AM

I've yet to find one predicting where Bigfoot could be seen. You never know however, in Failmore's solipsistic mind, one probably does exist.

Let's not go overboard.  It is clear that Wilmore doubts the existence of Bigfoot as much as any of us.  Those doubts are perfectly rational.  Let's give him some credit and respect for those doubts.  While there may be some tiny possibility that Bigfoot does indeed exist, I think that most rational people will acknowledge that it is a very tiny possibility indeed.  

It would be interesting, and exciting, though, to find solid evidence that there really is such a thing.  We still occasionally discover large, previously unknown species of animals, and many thousands of previously unknown, small species of animals and plants are discovered every year.

Viking,

You've totally missed the whole context of my post. Read the whole thing again.

I reread your post and I agree that I somewhat missed the full meaning of your post (specifically the part about a website that predicted where Bigfoot could be seen).  My Bad!  However, I don't think Wilmore's "solipsistic mind" gives any more credence to the existence of the Bigfoot-predicting website than it does to the existence of Bigfoot himself.  Otherwise, I fully agree with everything you said (particularly the "solipsistic mind" characterization). 

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 08, 2010, 04:49:20 AM

I like the way Wilmore blusters that my example is circular reasoning, yet if one were to go and look at weather records for the Kalahari and Scotland it would show real life agrees with me. Maybe real life uses circular reasoning, huh?

Thermal Detonator implying that circular reasoning is the way to go. This explains a great deal.

[/quote]

I think the point he was trying to make is that some statements are more likely to be true than others based on what has happened in the past. I'm kind of surprised that you missed this, unless you don't believe it to be true.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 08, 2010, 04:49:20 AM

I like the way Wilmore blusters that my example is circular reasoning, yet if one were to go and look at weather records for the Kalahari and Scotland it would show real life agrees with me. Maybe real life uses circular reasoning, huh?

Thermal Detonator implying that circular reasoning is the way to go. This explains a great deal.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 08, 2010, 04:49:20 AM

(BTW weather records are what we call "data", which is something different from "belief").

We weren't discussing data. We weren't even discussing statements supported by data. We were discussing unsupported statements.


Based on your response, I consider this matter settled.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 08, 2010, 04:10:20 AM

Oh, and it's spelled "gauge" not "guage".

Sorry about the typo, I hope you don't lose too much sleep over it.


Oh, and it's spelt "I have nothing meaningful to say", not "fail".

Hmm... notice how you don't actually respond to any of my points - perhaps you don't actually have any reasonable arguments to them, and you delude yourself because it makes you feel happy. (Don't worry, mammoths do exist outside the ice wall. You'll find them, one day.)

I think the point he was trying to make is that some statements are more likely to be true than others based on what has happened in the past. I'm kind of surprised that you missed this, unless you don't believe it to be true.

Well, if we ever have a discussion on empiricism, I'll be sure to quote his insightful, penetrating post to thrilling effect. Unfortunately, my point was that unsupported statements are not evidence, and that is not the same thing.

Hmm... notice how you don't actually respond to any of my points - perhaps you don't actually have any reasonable arguments to them, and you delude yourself because it makes you feel happy. (Don't worry, mammoths do exist outside the ice wall. You'll find them, one day.)

You did not make any points. You just blathered some crap that you obviously felt like getting off your chest. If you want to learn how to make points, then study what the other RE'ers in this thread have been posting. I may not agree with them, but at least they have been making points, not blather crap.

Quote from: Canadark on February 08, 2010, 08:27:53 PM

I think the point he was trying to make is that some statements are more likely to be true than others based on what has happened in the past. I'm kind of surprised that you missed this, unless you don't believe it to be true.

Well, if we ever have a discussion on empiricism, I'll be sure to quote his insightful, penetrating post to thrilling effect. Unfortunately, my point was that unsupported statements are not evidence, and that is not the same thing.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 09, 2010, 01:00:38 AM

Hmm... notice how you don't actually respond to any of my points - perhaps you don't actually have any reasonable arguments to them, and you delude yourself because it makes you feel happy. (Don't worry, mammoths do exist outside the ice wall. You'll find them, one day.)

You did not make any points. You just blathered some crap that you obviously felt like getting off your chest. If you want to learn how to make points, then study what the other RE'ers in this thread have been posting. I may not agree with them, but at least they have been making points, not blather crap.

Is saying "the Earth is probably round" an unsupported statement (or at least, a statement which cannot be supported)?

Quote from: Canadark on February 08, 2010, 08:27:53 PM

I think the point he was trying to make is that some statements are more likely to be true than others based on what has happened in the past. I'm kind of surprised that you missed this, unless you don't believe it to be true.

Well, if we ever have a discussion on empiricism, I'll be sure to quote his insightful, penetrating post to thrilling effect. Unfortunately, my point was that unsupported statements are not evidence, and that is not the same thing.

Even though I'm certain you'd say it's not, I want you to be aware that to everyone else this looks a lot like nit picking. You are trying to disagree with my suggestion that it's easier to observe a satellite than to observe Bigfoot, and the analogies thereof. I also want you to be aware that even if you tie yourself in knots to prove I'm technically wrong, I think the majority of people would agree with me.

Even though I'm certain you'd say it's not, I want you to be aware that to everyone else this looks a lot like nit picking. You are trying to disagree with my suggestion that it's easier to observe a satellite than to observe Bigfoot, and the analogies thereof. I also want you to be aware that even if you tie yourself in knots to prove I'm technically wrong, I think the majority of people would agree with me.

A big AMEN to that!  Give it up, Wilmore!  You are only succeeding in making yourself look ever more foolish, not to mention dishonest!

Even though I'm certain you'd say it's not, I want you to be aware that to everyone else this looks a lot like nit picking. You are trying to disagree with my suggestion that it's easier to observe a satellite than to observe Bigfoot, and the analogies thereof. I also want you to be aware that even if you tie yourself in knots to prove I'm technically wrong, I think the majority of people would agree with me.

This is the problem with you RE guys. You spend so much time gradually changing position, changing your argument, and changing the entire nature of the thread in an effort to catch me out or prove me wrong, that you end up convincing yourselves that I'm nitpicking, or distorting the argument or some other nonsense like that.


All I did was state that unsupported statements prove nothing. You're twisting the argument into something else, either accidentally or intentionally. If accidentally, then for whatever reason you're just missing my point, in which case I want you to understand my position. If intentionally, then you're using a straw man argument, and I'm perfectly entitled to show that. Either way, I'm just restating my original position, so don't blame me if it makes your posts irrelevant.


I'm not going to concede positions I never held in the first place just to please you. Preventing someone from misrepresenting your position isn't nit-picking.

A big AMEN to that!  Give it up, Wilmore!  You are only succeeding in making yourself look ever more foolish, not to mention dishonest!

Actually, I think that the consistency and validity of my arguments speak for themselves. My position is that unsupported statements prove nothing, and so far nobody has been able to challenge this position (because it is manifestly true). It's interesting that you accuse me of dishonesty, because when I see so many people who I know to be capable debators minsunderstanding or misrepresenting such a simple argument, I start to ask questions about their honesty.

Quote from: Canadark on February 08, 2010, 08:27:53 PM

I think the point he was trying to make is that some statements are more likely to be true than others based on what has happened in the past. I'm kind of surprised that you missed this, unless you don't believe it to be true.

Well, if we ever have a discussion on empiricism, I'll be sure to quote his insightful, penetrating post to thrilling effect. Unfortunately, my point was that unsupported statements are not evidence, and that is not the same thing.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 09, 2010, 01:00:38 AM

Hmm... notice how you don't actually respond to any of my points - perhaps you don't actually have any reasonable arguments to them, and you delude yourself because it makes you feel happy. (Don't worry, mammoths do exist outside the ice wall. You'll find them, one day.)

You did not make any points. You just blathered some crap that you obviously felt like getting off your chest. If you want to learn how to make points, then study what the other RE'ers in this thread have been posting. I may not agree with them, but at least they have been making points, not blather crap.

I'd rather blather crap and believe in a round earth than make so-called "constructive comments" and think that the earth is flat, but there you go...

Uh, my point was that you can believe the Earth is round and still not blather crap. As I say, the other RE'ers in this thread demonstrate the concept quite well.


www.rif.org

Uh, my point was that you can believe the Earth is round and still not blather crap. As I say, the other RE'ers in this thread demonstrate the concept quite well.


www.rif.org

I think I can sum up the last 2 pages:

Would it be accurate to say that you weren't claiming an equal likelihood of  "I saw 2 satellites an hour ago" and "I saw Bigfoot sipping whiskey" being true, but, through an albeit absurd statement (probably for effect) were trying to show that just because someone claims something-without backing it up with support-in no way makes it true with no intention of entering a monstorous debate over the statement?

Would it also be accurate to say that there may very well be artificial satellites orbiting, but a random statement of "I saw 2 satellites an hour ago" contributes nothing to proving this?

Finally would you agree that  "I looked through my telescope and restored the hull of a ship" or "I looked through my telescope and saw children frollicking in the surf" quite equally prove nothing? as well.

I would agree with all of the above, though I still don't understand why anyone disputed my position in the first place.


However, now that you've thrown them a bone in the form of a FE concession, my guess is that they will noisily concede the argument, loudly pointing out that the same applies to statements about FET as if this nullfiies my argument, even though I never suggested otherwise.

Uh, my point was that you can believe the Earth is round and still not blather crap. As I say, the other RE'ers in this thread demonstrate the concept quite well.


www.rif.org

Well, I'm not sure that you can comment on blathering crap - giving evidence as you did that dinosaurs could build boats...

Actually, I think that the consistency and validity of my arguments speak for themselves. My position is that unsupported statements prove nothing, and so far nobody has been able to challenge this position (because it is manifestly true). It's interesting that you accuse me of dishonesty, because when I see so many people who I know to be capable debators minsunderstanding or misrepresenting such a simple argument, I start to ask questions about their honesty.

I don't so much question the consistency of your arguments as I do their validity.  What I find so dishonest is your stubborn inability to acknowledge that there is indeed abundant, credible support for the existence of satellites--certainly far more abundant and credible than that for the existence of Bigfoot.

I would agree with all of the above, though I still don't understand why anyone disputed my position in the first place.


However, now that you've thrown them a bone in the form of a FE concession, my guess is that they will noisily concede the argument, loudly pointing out that the same applies to statements about FET as if this nullfiies my argument, even though I never suggested otherwise.

That wasn't the intention.  It was merely to point out the statement for what it was where as if it were to come from you it would, obviously, be met with "so you admit bigfoot doesn't exist".  It would be nice to move on back to the topic which I would actually have to go back and look at where we left off, because honestly I have no idea.

I mean.......How can you not understand why anyone disputed your position in the first place?  Why do you think that bigfoot drinks whiskey and how does this prove the earth to be flat?  Keep failing Failmore, stop spelling things wrong, something about semantics, stop looking out your window, something about 100 proofs and read ENaG. /derp!

Well, I'm not sure that you can comment on blathering crap - giving evidence as you did that dinosaurs could build boats...

....I really believe he did this for effect.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 10, 2010, 04:07:57 AM

Uh, my point was that you can believe the Earth is round and still not blather crap. As I say, the other RE'ers in this thread demonstrate the concept quite well.


www.rif.org

I think I can sum up the last 2 pages:

Would it be accurate to say that you weren't claiming an equal likelihood of  "I saw 2 satellites an hour ago" and "I saw Bigfoot sipping whiskey" being true, but, through an albeit absurd statement (probably for effect) were trying to show that just because someone claims something-without backing it up with support-in no way makes it true with no intention of entering a monstorous debate over the statement?

Would it also be accurate to say that there may very well be artificial satellites orbiting, but a random statement of "I saw 2 satellites an hour ago" contributes nothing to proving this?

Finally would you agree that  "I looked through my telescope and restored the hull of a ship" or "I looked through my telescope and saw children frollicking in the surf" quite equally prove nothing? as well.

Everyone missed the point of my post whereas, I supplied a website (one of many) that accurately tracks satellites supplying information about where & when you would be able to see them. How is this possible if satellites don't exist?

And why is there not a website that predicts where you can see Bigfoot?

The answer portrays the difference between the statement on satellites & the statement on Bigfoot.

Everyone missed the point of my post whereas, I supplied a website (one of many) that accurately tracks satellites supplying information about where & when you would be able to see them. How is this possible if satellites don't exist?

And why is there not a website that predicts where you can see Bigfoot?

The answer portrays the difference between the statement on satellites & the statement on Bigfoot.

I saw 2 satellites an hour ago.

  Unsupported statement proving nothing.

And I saw Big Foot drinking a hot whiskey this evening.

  Second unsupported statement proving nothing.  (absurd for effect)

Would it be accurate to say that you weren't claiming an equal likelihood of  "I saw 2 satellites an hour ago" and "I saw Bigfoot sipping whiskey" being true, but, through an albeit absurd statement (probably for effect) were trying to show that just because someone claims something-without backing it up with support-in no way makes it true with no intention of entering a monstorous debate over the statement?

Would it also be accurate to say that there may very well be artificial satellites orbiting, but a random statement of "I saw 2 satellites an hour ago" contributes nothing to proving this?

Finally would you agree that  "I looked through my telescope and restored the hull of a ship" or "I looked through my telescope and saw children frollicking in the surf" quite equally prove nothing? as well.

I would agree with all of the above, though I still don't understand why anyone disputed my position in the first place.

Outside of the whole "teh conspiracy" dribble  "here is a website where you can figure out where/when you can see a satellite pass by" > "I saw two satellites an hour ago"

I mean.......How can you not understand why anyone disputed your position in the first place?  Why do you think that bigfoot drinks whiskey and how does this prove the earth to be flat?  Keep failing Failmore, stop spelling things wrong, something about semantics, stop looking out your window, something about 100 proofs and read ENaG. /derp!

Fair point =)


Result: Its a Sphere is the only RE'er to emerge from this thread as a credible and intelligent poster.