Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Why do you ignore the other derailers, JimmyTheCrab?
burt, I think you broke ausGeoff!
Broken? Broken.....?
Burt thoroughly destroyed me Space Cowgirl. I may never walk unaided on two legs again!
Concentrate: I have taken out the insult (not ad hominem, because it was not part of my argument, instead ancillary to it), so that you can focus on the argument
I backed up my claim that you were an idiot, now back up your claim that I am an FE or that I believe in astrology, goatboy.
Whoaaaa..... the ad homs are flying thick and fast now! Well done Burt; an excellently tabled argument against me.
Flat earth desperation anyone?
This is what is called the definitist fallacy. The thing that is in dispute is not whether there are astrological tenets (in the way that you define them), which you tacitly assumed existed when you said:
"The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers. "
other wise what does "only exist" mean here?...erm...not exist?
So you are denying that astrological tenets can exist at all, and not that they just exist (or "only exist") in people's minds (which is the thing in dispute), but rather that astrology does not have any tenets, because tenets are "hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity" of some theory, now to go along with your new claim (by redifining the word tenet", which is wrong anyway because a tenet is a "principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" it does not necessarily have to make the theory valid.), you have just defined astrological tenets and lots of other tenets out of existence, which is not what you were trying to argue, and so you have moved the posts of your argument, which you keep doing, in order not be refuted - they are called conventionalist ad hoc stratagems.
The conclusion here is that
astrological tenets cannot exist, but they only exist in people's minds
they do exist and they don't exist [p ^ ¬p]
Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.
You are an idiot.
Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.
The good old, no fail, guaranteed-to-win-an-argument ad hominem attack.
Well done my friend. You've just further reinforced my opinions of flat earther logic. It's an oxymoron.
And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.
Nope. Sorry.
A tenet is one of the principles on which a hypothesis or a theory is based. There are no hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity of astrology. Ergo no tenets.
And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.
Thanks for your detailed response Burt.
Now... would you care to explain exactly why you've said what you've said—or, in this case—not said?
And remember mate; one word answers = bullshit.
I don't understand how because we can find instances where corporations and gov'ts have lied to us, THEREFORE the Earth is flat.
I can't follow this logic.
Sodium fluoride is bullshit though! All test were done with Calcium fluoride. And why does this mean the world is flat?
Well, hopefully whoever you're collecting data for can decipher your sentences.It is called deception.
Is it yaw ?Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks.I mean, if you're going to make personal attacks, you can at least spell them right.
Am I right jroa?
My semantics bashing skills are bigger than yours.
So was the post.Well, that post was as content full as an empty glass of water. Perhaps you can actually prove something?
"An empty glass of water" is nonsense.
No, but a book about aliens would show you the reasons to believe something or not believe others.
Everyone who reads ENaG becomes a flat Earther.
Well, that post was as content full as an empty glass of water. Perhaps you can actually prove something?
Beliefs are just that. In the end you need true facts to come to the real world. If a FE'er thinks the Antarctica is just a wall of ice then he should go there see for himself. If he does not want to go then his theories are just that. That is no evidence to his claim.And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.The position of a radical skeptic is that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't help your case. In the trilemma, one position is that there are inherent truths. This is not true, as who decides the inherency of truth?
No one opinion is more valid than another. The second way that knowledge is supposed to be possible is through the infinity of proofs. David Hume established the the link between cause and effect is illusory. Any proof that is attempted through that is wrong. Why is each proof connected to the next? Because we decide so. There is no other reason but human wishfulness to connect axioms. Thirdly. A way to justify knowledge is by saying the proof backs up the theory and vice versa. This is impossible as proof can never support theory. One thing can never justify another. Trees fall down when they are cut, why? Gravity? How does gravity make a tree fall down? Because that is what gravity does. Why does gravity do that? Because it does. When intertwining proof and theory down to the elementary level, an absurd, unprovable statement will arise.
Agrippa's trilemma is not trying to say there are different kinds of knowledge, it is trying to point that trying to JUSTIFY knowledge leads to one of the fallacies (which you outlined as though they were a rebbutal to agrippa's trilemma).
Agrippa's trilemma points out the fallacy of trying to justify knowledge. We are trying to classify knowledge, not certify it.
The reason agrippa's trilemma shows that the radical sceptic is wrong, is because the radical sceptic believes that any kind of knowledge must be justified by one of the trillemma's therefore falling into the same trap that justificationists do, i.e believing that the only type of knowledge is knowledge that is justified which is false. The difference between the people who believe that justification is necessary
is like this
Finitists believe that the infinite regress is legitimate
Axiomatics believe that there are self-evident truths
coherentists believe that things can be justified by themselves.
Radical Sceptics deny knowledge is possible, because none of the above work and the only true knowledge has to be based on one of the above. they don't reject that at least one of the above would factor into "true" knowledge (which they should) they instead state that knowledge is impossible (which is false).
That is why agippa's trilemma helps my case.
So...?
And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.The position of a radical skeptic is that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't help your case. In the trilemma, one position is that there are inherent truths. This is not true, as who decides the inherency of truth?
No one opinion is more valid than another. The second way that knowledge is supposed to be possible is through the infinity of proofs. David Hume established the the link between cause and effect is illusory. Any proof that is attempted through that is wrong. Why is each proof connected to the next? Because we decide so. There is no other reason but human wishfulness to connect axioms. Thirdly. A way to justify knowledge is by saying the proof backs up the theory and vice versa. This is impossible as proof can never support theory. One thing can never justify another. Trees fall down when they are cut, why? Gravity? How does gravity make a tree fall down? Because that is what gravity does. Why does gravity do that? Because it does. When intertwining proof and theory down to the elementary level, an absurd, unprovable statement will arise.
Agrippa's trilemma is not trying to say there are different kinds of knowledge, it is trying to point that trying to JUSTIFY knowledge leads to one of the fallacies (which you outlined as though they were a rebbutal to agrippa's trilemma).
Agrippa's trilemma points out the fallacy of trying to justify knowledge. We are trying to classify knowledge, not certify it.
The reason agrippa's trilemma shows that the radical sceptic is wrong, is because the radical sceptic believes that any kind of knowledge must be justified by one of the trillemma's therefore falling into the same trap that justificationists do, i.e believing that the only type of knowledge is knowledge that is justified which is false. The difference between the people who believe that justification is necessary
is like this
Finitists believe that the infinite regress is legitimate
Axiomatics believe that there are self-evident truths
coherentists believe that things can be justified by themselves.
Radical Sceptics deny knowledge is possible, because none of the above work and the only true knowledge has to be based on one of the above. they don't reject that at least one of the above would factor into "true" knowledge (which they should) they instead state that knowledge is impossible (which is false).
That is why agippa's trilemma helps my case.
I WILL SIMPLIFY THE QUESTION NOW. FILL IN THE BLANK:
"The evidence that the Earth is Flat is ____________________________"
Do not say it is not round. That is not why the Earth is flat. You do not know a shirt is blue because it is not green.
The position of a radical skeptic is that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't help your case. In the trilemma, one position is that there are inherent truths. This is not true, as who decides the inherency of truth?
No one opinion is more valid than another. The second way that knowledge is supposed to be possible is through the infinity of proofs. David Hume established the the link between cause and effect is illusory. Any proof that is attempted through that is wrong. Why is each proof connected to the next? Because we decide so. There is no other reason but human wishfulness to connect axioms. Thirdly. A way to justify knowledge is by saying the proof backs up the theory and vice versa. This is impossible as proof can never support theory. One thing can never justify another. Trees fall down when they are cut, why? Gravity? How does gravity make a tree fall down? Because that is what gravity does. Why does gravity do that? Because it does. When intertwining proof and theory down to the elementary level, an absurd, unprovable statement will arise.
Irrelevant.
Don't you mean that astrology does not say anything about the real world and not "astrology has no place in the real world" which is false, because people clearly still have the opinion that it works? So there is a place for it in the real world.
Nope. The fact that misguided or delude people still believe that astrology is a genuine "science" doesn't warrant its place in a real world—the one we inhabit.
The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers.
As do beliefs in supernatural entities (such as God) and paranormal phenomena (such as miracles).
You do understand that astrology is a bogus practice, and has no place in the real world don't you? It's nothing more than a bit of fun printed in the daily papers, and has no place on a site that's generally of a scientific nature (even if at times that science seems totally preposterous).
A few people here may confuse the legitimate science of astronomy with astrology, which can only muddy the waters further.
I absolutely know you are not real because you are a figment of my imagination. Prove me wrong.
Why is this moron allowed to post here?
I wonder if it is ever possible to post at thread here and stay on subject. More and Wison are totally different authors and has nothing to do with the point of this thread.
Alan Moore, one of, if not, the greatest comic book and graphic novelist ever, literary genius. writer of Watchmen. V for Vendetta, From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and many others, explains why conspiracy theorists think how they do. This doesn't mean there are no conspiracies or gov't cover ups. But people who live their lives by conspiracies or people like Flat Earthers, should understand what he is trying to say here. If you read V for Vendetta, you know he is very anti-establishment. But what he is talking about is the thinking behind conspiracy obsessed people. The motivation behind believing the Earth is Flat is not based on any evidence, it is based on a mental state.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alan Moore on Conspiracies
The burden of proof is on knowledge, not against knowledge.
Radical skepticism states that it is merely impossible to know anything. How do you know 1+1=2?
And, you still haven't answered my question on why both theories do not have equal inheritance.
relies on whether theory gives a better explanation than others and is, in principle, falsifiable.
Radically skepticism is philosophically impeccable. Try to disprove it.
And, you still haven't answered my question on why both theories do not have equal inheritance.
