Give me evidence the earth is either flat or round

Refusing to believe in substantiated scientific beliefs and trying to back up pseudoscientific ones is an exercise of free speech and no one should be jailed for that. From what I take it, he was annoying you with his flat-earthiness stubborness at which point you said "There comes a point where stupidity should be considered a crime. " That is not paranoia, that is taking directly from your statement.

Refusing to believe in substantiated scientific beliefs and trying to back up pseudoscientific ones is an exercise of free speech and no one should be jailed for that. From what I take it, he was annoying you with his flat-earthiness stubborness at which point you said "There comes a point where stupidity should be considered a crime. " That is not paranoia, that is taking directly from your statement.

It is his expression on how extreme the thinking of FE'ers are. You think modern science is a choice of mind. It is not. If it was not for scientist and engineers you would be writing on a stone table. How arrogant  for you to think all scientist are not for the better of all mankind.

Scientists are in it for the money.  Tell a scientist that he will no longer be getting paid and see how much he cares about the betterment of mankind.  If I had enough money, I could get 100 scientist to all agree that the Earth is flat.

Scientists are in it for the money.  Tell a scientist that he will no longer be getting paid and see how much he cares about the betterment of mankind.  If I had enough money, I could get 100 scientist to all agree that the Earth is flat.

Only if they were mentally ill as anyone with half a functioning brain understands the Earth is a sphere.

The tobacco companies were able to pay scientists to claim that tobacco was not addictive or harmful. 

Yes and you are confusing topics. There have been many false studies or twisted studies to meet agendas and corruption due to gov't and corporate corruption. Scientists have also been wrong many times and then came up with new or expanded theories. That has nothing to do with how we know the Earth is round. That has nothing to do with established laws of physics that permeate our lives daily.  It is not a theory. As we have told you numerous times, there are many ways you can discover how the Earth is round on your own, but you refuse to do anything but argue. You have closed your mind into learning anything new that has any logic to it.

No, I disagree with you Jroa. Why are there so many professors and people researching quantum mechanics and astrophysics when the pay isn't good? All they do is write on boards and communicate for the search of knowledge. Some scientists get paid a lot yes, but with their intelligence it would be far easier to take a job as something pays well. In fact, when I was younger I always wanted to be a scientists, knowing that it wouldn't pay as much as say a banker or something like that.

All theoretical scientists are doing, are adding snippets to a fictional story, where there is no ending.

This site shows the mental state is the origin to these beliefs. Seems there is a fine line between insanity and real conspiracies.

"Popper does not try to give an exhaustive characterisation of all the forms that irrationalism has taken. He, rather, focuses on what he takes to be its key component: other people's arguments are not taken at face value. Irrationalists see thought as being 'merely a somewhat superficial manifestation of what exists 'in the “deeper” layers of human nature' and then look for hidden motives from which they believe theories and arguments spring. […], [rationalism, on the other hand] at its heart is a readiness not to lightly dismiss contrary opinions and a willingness not to ignore or evade criticisms directed at your own views."

The accusation of metnal illness fits in with "Irrationalists see thought as being 'merely a somewhat superficial manifestation of what exists 'in the “deeper” layers of human nature' and then look for hidden motives from which they believe theories and arguments spring."

that means you are being irrational, no?

If you are not a physicist and you deny physics, what is your basis?

If you are not a physicist and you deny physics, what is your basis?

Reality.

Explain more to me, please. What you mean by "reality".

If you are not a physicist and you deny physics, what is your basis?

There are lots of physicist and I let them to their job. I am not a doctor that does not mean I don't believe in medicine and medicine does not exist.

I was trying to tell Burt that if he doesn't understand the physics and their justification in science, he shouldn't be so quick to distrust it.
I am an not a doctor and I trust medicine because it works.
Same thing with physics.

Just when we have sorted out Scepti...

I was trying to tell Burt that if he doesn't understand the physics and their justification in science, he shouldn't be so quick to distrust it.
I am an not a doctor and I trust medicine because it works.
Same thing with physics.

First of all, whether or not, physics say they "justify" theories. This is false because justification leads to the munchhausen trilemma, sometimes called Agrippa's Trilemma, and Popper solved this trilemma by coming up with a fallibilist view of science, you should look up Critical Rationalism.

Second of all I cannot distrust concepts or ideas, that is what is called a categorical error.

Third of all, I was not being serious.

I think I should make it absolutley clear: The FE forum gets the same bullshit from RE and FEers alike over and over again, the only thing to do sometimes is take the piss.

If you are a critical rationalist or even a radical skeptic, then all knowledge is falsifiable according to your own logic. Each theory therefore has equal weight.

If you are a critical rationalist or even a radical skeptic, then all knowledge is falsifiable according to your own logic.

True.

Each theory therefore has equal weight.

False.

Furthermore Radical scpeticism is a false view and has nothing to do with CR. Radical scpetics think we cannot have knowledge because they are justificationists about knowledge and therefore conclude that no knowledge is possible, because justification is impossible.

Whereas I am a fallibalist and believe that all knowledge is conjectural and relies on whether theory gives a better explanation than others and is, in principle, falsifiable.

Why not?

Why not?

Look at my edited post and read about explanations.

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.

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.

Give me an argument for radical scepticism.

If a theory is not falsifiable it holds no knowledge.

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.

Your question was modified from the first to second.

If you think that a model has a better explanatory power. What you have to do is bring to the table what thoery you have and why your theory is better than the current one (meaning you have to offer both criticism of the prevailing view and an apprasisal of yours), the new view has to explain the anomalies that the old one could not solve, solve everything the earlier one solved and predict things that cannot be accounted for by the old theory, so that they can be tested against eachother

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?

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 I answerd this criticism, because they believe in a justificatory view of knoweledge which is false, because of agrippas trilemma.

1+1 = 2 is just a conventional way of putting a methematical truism. But any way maths is irrelevant, becuase it is a system of tautologies.

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.

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 the idea that one of the above would factor into "true" knowledge (which they should, in other words knowledge would not need to be justified.) they instead state that knowledge is impossible (which is false).

That is why agippa's trilemma helps my case.

Quote from: broaztheearthisflat on March 22, 2014, 06:07:34 PM

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.

And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.

Quote from: burt on March 23, 2014, 07:02:48 PM

Quote from: broaztheearthisflat on March 22, 2014, 06:07:34 PM

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.

And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.

So...?

Quote from: Starman on March 23, 2014, 07:09:19 PM

Quote from: burt on March 23, 2014, 07:02:48 PM

Quote from: broaztheearthisflat on March 22, 2014, 06:07:34 PM

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.

And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.

So...?

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.