The reason why there are no specific experts on that subject is because it is no longer a subject that requires a specific "expert" unless you know better.
The why is irrelevant.
But this certainly is going against the idea of what you were saying before.
It is therefore impossible for someone to become an expert in today’s world without access to experts.
Did you Jack black learn to read on your own with no expert to help?
Did you Jack black learn colours on your own working out the names for yourself?
Did you Jack Black learn how to walk on your own?
Did you Jack Black learn to talk on your own with no expert input?
Did you Jack Bkack acquire a vocabulary with no expert input?
How did you manage to learn how to write on your own with no expert to assist?
Have you ever read any books on specific subjects who’s facts were previously unknown to you?
If the answer is yes then you have consulted experts.
There you are acting like we have experts on talking, reading, colours, walking and so on, even though most people are just getting to the same level as the vast majority of people in the country they are in.
You seemed to be implying that almost everyone who can read is an expert on reading. But now you say everyone can know the shape of Earth without needing to be an expert.
As for current experts, ever heard of geodesists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy#Notable_geodesistsWowoha....thats not what Brawndo said! You added some extra bits!
I paraphrased, I wouldn't call that adding extra bits.
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
Where did he say about not bothering? Thats something you added.
"the ONLY thing you could possibly do to understand"
That means no point in bothering with anything else, as there is only this one possible way.
I maintain he is correct. You maintain he is wrong.
I maintain the only way you could do it is by repeating a previous experiment or observation that others have devised thus you are using expert advice.
So you maintain he is correct, while directly contradicting him.
Where did he say you obtain this understanding by repeating previous experiments or observations?
Again, what he actually said is that the only possible way is by just accepting what the experts say Earth is.
Notice the key part you keep overlooking?
Again, it isn't just getting help from an expert, it is specifically accepting WHAT THEY SAY EARTH IS!
If they say Earth is round, you accept that and then "know" Earth is round, if they say Earth is flat, you accept that and "know" Earth is flat.
The only way experiments are linked to his claim is via their absence.
His claim indicates that experiments are NOT a viable way to gain an understanding of the shape of Earth, that the only possible way is by just accepting what an expert says.
And I object to that BS, and you have directly contradicted it as well.
So which is it?
Is Brawndo wrong and we don't just need to accept what they say Earth is, and instead we can do experiments?
Or do you think Brawndo is right and those experiments are pointless and do not give you any understanding of the shape of Earth and that the only way to get such an understanding is by just accepting what they say Earth is.
You appear not to accept that.
When you say that, are you saying I appear to not accept Brawndo's claim, or that I appear to not accept your contradictory claim?
No, I appear to outright reject Brawndos claim and instead claim as a possibility the very thing you are suggesting is the only way, which is in direct contradiction to Brawndo's claim.
Remember the meaning of the word appear!
It doesn't mean what you want it to.
You can't claim that something appears in a particular way just so you can blatantly misrepresent it.
If I say it "appears that you are claiming you are a complete imbecile that can't even tie your own shoes without some expert assistance", is that being honest?
No, because there is nothing that actually portrays that and it doesn't appear that way at all.
Likewise, when you claim it "appears" that I say something or claim something or think something, there is no evidence of that at all. It is a strawman you have constructed with no basis in reality.
It does not appear that way at all.
The word you are better off using is that you think that.
Then we can discuss why you think that when there is nothing to suggest that except your repeated strawmanning.
Perhaps you should try to read what is said, all of it, rather than just continually strawmanning.
You appear to be say that repeating a previous experiment devised by A. N. Other is NOT accepting expert advice!
No, I don't. That is your blatant lie so you can pretend to be correct, while continually avoiding what Brawndo's statement actually was and actually means.
You say you can disprove Brawndo's statement but never say how!
I do, you just keep on ignoring it.
Remember this logical argument you are yet to refute (another slight modification to deal with you claiming there are no experts.:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 -
Experts on the shape of Earth exist andPeople know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.
This logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute proves beyond any doubt that Brawndo's statement is wrong.
It doesn't prove you directly contradictory statement wrong, but again, I'm arguing against Brawndo's statement, not your contradictory one that you want to pretend I am arguing against.
No one has mentioned religion but you.
So creationist aren't religious? Mentioning them isn't mentioning religion?
You APPEAR to think accepting scientific knowledge is akin to religious belief!
You APPEAR to be saying that unless you prove each scientific concept you come across accepting some is akin to religious belief.
Again, that is your strawman, not what it actually appears to be.
What I say is religious is the idea that the only way you could possibly understand is by accepting what an expert says the truth is.
That is religion, not science.
Science would be saying you can use experiments to verify it.
It isn't saying you HAVE TO verify everything. It is the possibility to which changes it from religion to science.
Because that is irrelevant to the logical argument I made.
All that matters for that argument is that someone knows the shape of Earth now.
Evasion and a refusal to prove the very point your argument rests on.
You mean refusal to give in to your ridiculous demands to run off on a tangent.
I gave the point that is important. The point that my argument rests upon, that experts know the shape of Earth.
This gives you a problem, the only way to become an expert is by getting that knowledge. The only way to get that knowledge is by just accepting what an expert says it is.
That means no expert->no way to get the knowledge->No way to become an expert.
There is no way for you disprove what Brandow said.
Again, the logical argument disproving the statement still stands unchallenged.
Are you for real. I said YOU have NONE of YOUR own experiments or observations that YOU can do that are of YOUR own devising.
No, you didn't, at least not in context.
I repeatedly pointed out that we don't need brand new experiments.
I even provided an example of such a previous experiment that can be replicated.
So when you claim these experiments don't exist, you are saying experiments which show Earth is round, not experiments made up by me, with no resemblance to prior experiments.
I never once said RE belief
And I never said you did.
I said you are pretending it is a religious belief, as that is how religious beliefs are passed on.
Your actions and claims about how people come to know Earth is round and that there are no experiments that show Earth is round is pretending it is a religious belief rather than a fact.
If it was a fact you wouldn't need to just accept what an expert says, you would be able to perform observations and experiments to show it is a fact.
The point that you are failing to understand is the experts experiment
I'm not failing to understand anything. That is a point you are trying to strawman.
What you are suggesting is nothing like what Brawndo said.
The point you repeatedly fail to understand is that Brawndo's claim said nothing about experiments. They only way they are involved is due to their absence, meaning according to his claims, experiments do not allow you to understand the shape of Earth.
According to his claim, the only way to understand is by accepting what the experts say Earth is.
Again, that is:
"Expert says Earth round, I know Earth round".
That is vastly different to:
"Expert describes an experiment to determine if Earth is round. I replicate this experiment. The results of the experiment indicate Earth is round. I know Earth is round".
Notice the difference?
With one, specifically the one showing Brawndo's claim, all you are doing is accepting what they say Earth is.
With the other, you aren't, you don't even need them to say Earth is round.
the ONLY way you could prove Brawndo is wrong, and it is conceivable it could be done is to come up with a new set of experiments and observations that have never been carried out before. Why anyone would wish to do that is another matter.
Again, that would be proving your strawman wrong.
The logical argument I have provided proves he is wrong beyond any sane doubt.