"FE'ISM" DOES NOT WORK

then post personal attacks because that's all your brain allows you to do - that doesn't make your statements any stronger.

Likewise.

Why yes. It feels delightful to see you aggravated and then trying to mask it behind "haha"s.  :lol:

Quote from: "bibicul"

then post personal attacks because that's all your brain allows you to do - that doesn't make your statements any stronger.

Likewise.

Whatever you say mate... whatever you say.  

While you seem slightly intelligent, you are obviously too simple minded and gullible to know what is serious and what isn't. This reflects on your intelligence, making you look stupid.

You failed to mention the lack of information received in a long-distance conversation, using words of hand rather than words of mouth.  Words of mouth give hints through tone, and short-distance conversations give hints through body language.

Can we get back on topic?
Yes we all know Beast is special.
Yes we alll know Bibicul will not hesitate to let people know that he's fed up with little restrain.
Yes we all know that Erasmus likes doing off topic remarks out of nowhere.
Yes we all know Engineer tells people that they don't back up their claims when they obviously do.
And yes, we all know BOGWarrior89 makes out of this world comments out of the blue (though he didn't in this thread.......yet:))

Now, can the topic of this thread be adressed and/or refuted?

@ Erasmus. You're a mod. you shouldn't encourage people to go off topic.

And yes, we all know BOGWarrior89 makes out of this world comments out of the blue (though he didn't in this thread.......yet:))

Where the frak have you been?  You obviously need to read some more in this thread ...

Honestly, why do you guys even bother with biblicul?  He never says anything worthwhile, he doesn't back up anything he says and he believes himself to be right when everyone shows (with supporting evidence!) that he is wrong. Yet, he never admits to it, then whole heartedly persists to dig himself an even deeper grave.

That's why I don't bother with him anymore.

I know what you mean but I can't help myself, he's just too funny.

Oh, and you overuse the word "gullible".

How many times, not counting quotes, have I used the word on the forum in my 1000+ posts?  I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is 3 times although I guess I could have miscounted either way by 1 or 2.  

I don't know about you but I don't think using a word in about 0.3% of posts is "overuse."  Of course I don't know how you define "overuse."

Idiot wrote:
I know what you mean but I can't help myself, he's just too funny.

Ah, funny, funny, but let's not forget that you are the one exposed to "much outside ridicule" and  known for "dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition", and "by extension one who lives in the past" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society).

Idiot wrote:
I don't know about you but I don't think using a word in about 0.3% of posts is "overuse."  Of course I don't know how you define "overuse."

Well, using common sense - which is what I prefer to do when I argue with the likes of you - I would say that overusing a word (in your case, "gullible") means using it until it stands out to your readers from conversation to conversation.

Ouch you called me an idiot.  That hurts.   :lol:

Wasn't it you who said people resort to insults when they're losing arguments?

So you're saying that having used a particular word 3 times, it now stands out when I use it - in fact when I used it the third time.  Interesting.

Those quotes from the wikipedia are interesting.  I especially like this comment about being a flat Earther;

"Dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition."



But you know what, I've really got far too much self confidence to worry about what people think of me.  Because of the nature of what I do, I'm really a very arrogant person with a very big ego.  I can't help it, I think everybody in my situation would be the same.  So really when people insult me or what I believe in, I find it very hard to feel anything other than superiority.  This is not at all a good trait and I'm not suggesting that it is (although I do think we live in a very insecure society and it would be a much better place if people were more comfortable with themselves), I'm just telling you that when you bring up these insults about my intelligence, how people view me, my sexual prowess etc, it really has the opposite effect to what you're aiming for.  I can't help it - I definitely receive far too many compliments in my life at the moment (and I find it very hard to 'keep it real').

Wasn't it you who said people resort to insults when they're losing arguments?

Well, let's not forget that I am only answering in the same manner. It was getting tiring to argue politely when you kept launching personal attacks.

So you're saying that having used a particular word 3 times, it now stands out when I use it - in fact when I used it the third time.  Interesting.

Very interesting.  

Those quotes from the wikipedia are interesting.  I especially like this comment about being a flat Earther;

I guess you like negative descriptions of yourself. Again, interesting, to say the least.

Because of the nature of what I do, I'm really a very arrogant person with a very big ego

I didn't know that staying home had that effect on people, but ok.

I'm just telling you that when you bring up these insults about my intelligence, how people view me, my sexual prowess etc, it really has the opposite effect to what you're aiming for.  I can't help it - I definitely receive far too many compliments in my life at the moment (and I find it very hard to 'keep it real').

Somehow I doubt that very much. But you are very arrogant, indeed.

/loads shotgun

BACK.  ON.  TOPIC.

/loads shotgun

BACK.  ON.  TOPIC.

Sawed off, riot or combat shotgun?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

/loads shotgun

BACK.  ON.  TOPIC.

Sawed off, riot or combat shotgun?

Uranium.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

/loads shotgun

BACK.  ON.  TOPIC.

Sawed off, riot or combat shotgun?

Uranium.

You have to be a very dedicated person when you put a mortage on your house for every person you kill

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

/loads shotgun

BACK.  ON.  TOPIC.

Sawed off, riot or combat shotgun?

Uranium.

You have to be a very dedicated person when you put a mortage on your house for every person you kill

I don't own a house, and I steal my uranium pellets from the government.

I didnt read the last post, but the original post in this topic he stated how we couteract aguments by answering simple questions which globularists see as "grounding" evidence to prove that the earth is not in the shape of a disk such as

“How come you think the flat earth exists?"
"Well, how come you think it doesn't exist?"

This my dear, dear friend is called Socratic method.

It is a way in which the accused (who may not have full proof of the answer but knows himself to be correct) answers the question put forward to them by a following question.  The aim of this is to tie the accuser back and make them  trip up on themselves.  It is a very good way of making someone who thinks that they know their stuff getting it wrong and knowing it and therefore the accuser becomes the accused.

So why cant we answer

"How come you think there is a government conspiracy?"

with

"Well, how come you think that there isn't one?"

??

This my dear, dear friend is called Socratic method.

Hey, no fair giving away all the tricks.

Actually, I like to think nobler thoughts about the Socratic method than that.  The response-question ought to in some way alter the scope of the original question, either by focusing on one of its implicit assumptions or by looking at the "bigger picture".  Simply responding to "Why?" with "Why not?" however doesn't actually take the discussion anywhere.

yeh sorry bout that haha.

very true. But if it works then why not?

But if it works then why not?

I just feel like it's saying "Pass" when given a chance to make a real argument.  Nothing new has been added to the discussion.  Furthermore, the original poser of the question can respond by just reasking his original question.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think it works.  Do you think it works?  Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote from: "Rogherio"

But if it works then why not?

I just feel like it's saying "Pass" when given a chance to make a real argument.  Nothing new has been added to the discussion.  Furthermore, the original poser of the question can respond by just reasking his original question.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think it works.  Do you think it works?  Maybe I'm wrong.

The proverbial "two-king" stalemate.

I doubt Socrates knew very much.  He just knew better than to believe things at face value.

I didnt read the last post, but the original post in this topic he stated how we couteract aguments by answering simple questions which globularists see as "grounding" evidence to prove that the earth is not in the shape of a disk such as

“How come you think the flat earth exists?"
"Well, how come you think it doesn't exist?"

This my dear, dear friend is called Socratic method.

It is a way in which the accused (who may not have full proof of the answer but knows himself to be correct) answers the question put forward to them by a following question.  The aim of this is to tie the accuser back and make them  trip up on themselves.  It is a very good way of making someone who thinks that they know their stuff getting it wrong and knowing it and therefore the accuser becomes the accused.

So why cant we answer

"How come you think there is a government conspiracy?"

with

"Well, how come you think that there isn't one?"

??

We cannot answer

"How come you think there is a government conspiracy?"

with

"Well, how come you think that there isn't one?"

because it is by definition a negative statement, and therefore a logical fallacy. It is not representative of the Socratic method. The Socratic method involves the following: two speakers at any one time, with one leading the discussion and the other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or rejection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method).

A little off-topic, but Plato's Republic is written using the Socratic method and it is widely studied in political science; I had the opportunity of reading and analyzing both Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics in university. One of the drawbacks of these writings is that it doesn't actually answer all the questions raised. Instead of providing a direct answer, Socrates sometimes uses analogies (that don't always work) to prove the initial statement false and the opposite true as a direct consequence.

Lastly, the Socratic method, while not used in my argument at all, applies to the examination of key moral concepts, not science. It is also not a flawless method, but rather a starting point for future methods of debating.

Morals are things which cannot be completely proven.  I could use examples of situation ethics and virtue ethics to apply thenm to the same moral problem and end up with a completely different outcome.

Surely if we have been taught RE science all our lives we have a reason to debate whether it is concreted in truth? As you said the Socratic method is a way to begin an arguement, is there a better way to begin an arguement other than questioning? The only way in which to prove an arguement/statement to which there is already an answer is by finding a flaw in it and then coming up with a better answer.

Wikipedia does not have all the answers. Socratic method can be used in more ways than it is said to.  Just like maths. Or anything else in this world.  eg, food can be used for more than eating it...

Just because Socrates was not perfect in all of his arguements, does not mean that his theory does not work. He was just a very stubborn man who refused to lose arguements.

"I doubt Socrates knew very much. He just knew better than to believe things at face value."

And as for that.

Maybe you should consider studying Socrates a little further. And then Plato and Aristotle.

Morals are things which cannot be completely proven.  I could use examples of situation ethics and virtue ethics to apply thenm to the same moral problem and end up with a completely different outcome.

Surely if we have been taught RE science all our lives we have a reason to debate whether it is concreted in truth? As you said the Socratic method is a way to begin an arguement, is there a better way to begin an arguement other than questioning? The only way in which to prove an arguement/statement to which there is already an answer is by finding a flaw in it and then coming up with a better answer.

Wikipedia does not have all the answers. Socratic method can be used in more ways than it is said to.  Just like maths. Or anything else in this world.  eg, food can be used for more than eating it...

Just because Socrates was not perfect in all of his arguements, does not mean that his theory does not work. He was just a very stubborn man who refused to lose arguements.

"I doubt Socrates knew very much. He just knew better than to believe things at face value."

And as for that.

Maybe you should consider studying Socrates a little further. And then Plato and Aristotle.

About the last comment, as you can probably see it's not mine. I have nothing against Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.
With regards to your post, I don't see how it answers or disproves what I said. Morals and morals, science is science. We don't use the same debating methods for the two; in my opinion (and this is just an opinion) morals are definitely more debatable and questionable than science, which is (fairly) exact. Lastly, what I called a negative statement and logical fallacy has nothing to do with the Socratic method, as I've stated before.

I was not necesseraly arguing against your point.

Just adding to it.

Ok

... interesting read i must say... however i do have an open mind and try to see from both points of view i understand what the FE'ers are feeling right now i see it as frustration which obviously means they realize they are loosing there argument and even though i see a basic structure of this topic if you look into it deeply on the first post you will see that this almost looks like an attempt to annoy the FE'ers and make them try to argue and make themselves look like idiots... oh by the way beast your posts are usually just responses to insults i agree that i would react to but your overall opinion in this seems like a futile attempt for attention... good work "bible dude" (  :? whats with that nickname? its kinda sad that beats cant remeber your name so hes calls you "bible dude"....)

 :wink:

Well beast and I had quite a few disagreements. Basically, he disagreed with everything that I ever said; after noticing this pattern in 1 or 2 threads I though, "Fair enough, he has a different point of view from mine with regards to the shape of the earth". After a while however I realized that independently of the topic of discussion, he would disagree with me instinctively. At this point of time I changed my perspective to "Fair enough, he realized that he lost practically all the arguments that we had, and therefore feels the urge to make a comeback". It's unfortunate that up to this day he was unable to do so.

Quote from: "bibicul"

Analysis 1:

Let’s begin with the definition of negative proof (in reference to "logical fallacy", not "proof of impossibility"). A negative proof is a statement such as:

“X exists because there is no proof that X doesn't exist.”

OR

“How come you think the flat earth exists?"
"Well, how come you think it doesn't exist?"

In most debates with FE’ers (such as Erasmus, GeoGuy, thebeast and many, many others), such negative proof is encountered somewhere, for example in statements such as “there is a government conspiracy because there is no proof that there isn’t a government cospiracy”, “the ice wall exists because you cannot prove that it doesn’t”, “photos taken from space have been falsified because there is no proof that they haven’t been falsified”, or even “the earth is flat because you cannot prove that it isn’t”. As stated above, negative proof can also have the form "How come you think there is a government conspiracy?" to which they respond "Well, how come you think that there isn't one?", etc.

You'll have to provide some examples of actual posts, because I've never seen a FE say anything remotely like that.

Quote

Analysis 2:

FE’ers claim that the burden of proof lies of RE’ers, or “the accusers”. This is false. Please note that “outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say, "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof). If that wording proves too difficult for FE’ers, then here is a simpler explanation: “The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof).

The first part of your post I quoted is a perfect example of what FE's mean when they say the burden of proof lies with the RE's. You just made the statement that FE's say

Quote

“X exists because there is no proof that X doesn't exist.”

as evidence for a FE, yet failed to provide a single piece of evidence to back up your claims.
 When an RE says something like "It is proven that Earth is round" He then has to provide evidence to show exactly how it's been proven. So the burden of proof is on him.

Your first statement: You don't need to say such a thing, the theory behind the FE theory is an example of this.

Third statement: He does not need to back up his claims as his claims are accepted worldwide. Therefore it is up to you guys to prove to us that your theory is incorrect, as it is obviously not accpeted worldwide.

Well beast and I had quite a few disagreements. Basically, he disagreed with everything that I ever said; after noticing this pattern in 1 or 2 threads I though, "Fair enough, he has a different point of view from mine with regards to the shape of the earth". After a while however I realized that independently of the topic of discussion, he would disagree with me instinctively. At this point of time I changed my perspective to "Fair enough, he realized that he lost practically all the arguments that we had, and therefore feels the urge to make a comeback". It's unfortunate that up to this day he was unable to do so.

I'm sorry but can you give an example where you didn't "instinctively disagree with me"?