"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 13, 2008, 02:34:34 PM

At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently

I'm glad we're agreed.  Bring on your friend so that he can laugh with us at your postings.

Spoken like a true FEr. Taking a half truth and then posting it for the forum to laugh at your ignorance. I would not expect someone of your integrity to ever post the complete sentence found above.

At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently on the subject with someone who has a doctorate in the field of astrophysics

I think Shaydog has a crush on me. 

I think Shaydog has a crush on me. 

I do

Cant lie

Why are all our trolls so incredibly horny these days? What happened to good old fashioned straight talkin' verbal abuse?

Hi Kasroa,
I love your signature! The formation of earth truly is magical! Thanks for all your hard work on these forums!

LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.

If you're into being an ignorant asshat (who thinks he's tough on the internet), who can only invoke fallacies to claim knowledge, than you're just a waste of space and time. Really not surprising.

Anyone that thinks faking pictures/video is too difficult can die in a fire. That must've taken a ton of money to create...

Hi Kasroa,
I love your signature! The formation of earth truly is magical! Thanks for all your hard work on these forums!

And the formation of you from a dog turd was magical too.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 13, 2008, 02:34:34 PM

LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.

If you're into being an ignorant asshat (who thinks he's tough on the internet), who can only invoke fallacies to claim knowledge, than you're just a waste of space and time. Really not surprising.

I am actually tough in real life but that is besides the point.  I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of. And I was talking about you debating my friend. I sent Roundy the link and I will PM it to you as well. I already have an email sent to him and a link to this site. More then likely I will try and get the debate set up with TheEngineer or Narc. They seem to understand their positions the best from a physics perspective. I dont want to bore my buddy with dumb bullshit or he wont do it.

My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.

I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of.

I can't imagine that you've avoided appealing to authority. Negative proof fallacy and argument from ignorance are very popular around here. Appeal to ridicule is also one that shows up, as well as wishful thinking. Whether you've invoked any of these can't really be determined from my point of view. Probabilistically though, you've at least invoked one to claim some type of knowledge set you have.

My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.

Well, thinking that educational background translates into intelligence would be somewhat illogical. Personally, my friends and neighbors who haven't done certain schooling or achieved high GPAs, are more intelligent and successful than those who did go to school. I suppose it depends on what type of intelligence and success you're trying to establish though, I digress.

It would be interesting to see any such debate that arises from your friend's involvement though.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 14, 2008, 05:38:04 AM

I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of.

I can't imagine that you've avoided appealing to authority. Negative proof fallacy and argument from ignorance are very popular around here. Appeal to ridicule is also one that shows up, as well as wishful thinking. Whether you've invoked any of these can't really be determined from my point of view. Probabilistically though, you've at least invoked one to claim some type of knowledge set you have.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 14, 2008, 05:38:04 AM

My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.

Well, thinking that educational background translates into intelligence would be somewhat illogical. Personally, my friends and neighbors who haven't done certain schooling or achieved high GPAs, are more intelligent and successful than those who did go to school. I suppose it depends on what type of intelligence and success you're trying to establish though, I digress.

It would be interesting to see any such debate that arises from your friend's involvement though.

You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.

Appeal to authority from my understanding is this:

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

   1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
   2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
   3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I have watched you guys pull that fallacy out of context way too much on here. NASA is known to be a legitimate authority on the subject of astrophysics. Whether you believe that is a different story because the first rule of logic is belief does not equal truth. So next time you want to use that against someone try keeping it in context.

And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart. And NASA and the California Institute of Technology did not seek him out because they thought he might know what he is talking about.

I dont mind PMing you the link to his bio if you want to read up a little bit on him. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have been friends with him since elementary school and to this day I have not met a more intelligent person. He made a great egg drop contest partner in Junior High as well. Of course he wouldnt let me help but I got to watch and still got the A.

You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.

Well, even the FAQ says to ignore Tom. He invokes a few fallacies and gets some things wrong.

The Conspiracy theory might be the easiest justification for FE beliefs, but there is no evidence for it. This means that you are undermining your valid arguments by stating a thing yo have no proof of.
And have you thought that the world is round and maybe it is a conspiracy to make you think it is flat not round by the admins. <-- I have the same amount of proof of this claim as you do for the 'conspiracy' theory.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 14, 2008, 06:24:52 AM

You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.

Well, even the FAQ says to ignore Tom. He invokes a few fallacies and gets some things wrong.

Still, appealing to NASA is not a fallacy. They are a legitimate authority on the subject of astrophysics and they are not one single person, they are a collective group of experts which is even more legit.

So again, NASA has legitimate claims of space travel, eye witness accounts, and credible photos and videos to back their expert claims. It is not their job to prove to you they are correct, it is your job to prove they are incorrect and are maliciously deceiving the human population. The ball lies in the court of the person claiming conspiracy not the other way around.

And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.

What about Ted Kaczynski?  You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.  Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers

We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 13, 2008, 07:03:11 AM

Anyone that thinks faking pictures/video is too difficult can die in a fire. That must've taken a ton of money to create...

So you admit then that you think amateur astronomers are part of the conspiracy?  Why would he fake it?  Why did a bunch of other astronomers "fake images" of the Tempel 1 impact?  Why is there not a single person who recorded the tempel 1 "non-impact" and came forward claiming it didn't happen?  I saw the brightening myself, it happened, I only wish I was as well equipped and experienced at deep space astrophotography back then as I am now.   By the way, if you're going to make the claim that this spacecraft impact was faked by amateurs for no reason, you need to prove your claim.

http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi

Incidently narcberry, I should thank you for supporting my notion that if you're going to hold to FE and be consistent about your theory, you have to believe that amateur astronomers are part of the conspiracy.  Not everyone here has the intellectual honesty to admit that.

More amateur recordings of the impact:

(tracking was pretty bad on this one, not everyone's skill at astrophotography is great, mine wasn't even this good in 2005)



Now Narcberry, can you prove that every single one of these animations was faked by the amateurs who recorded them?

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 14, 2008, 06:24:52 AM

And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.

What about Ted Kaczynski?  You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.  Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers

Quote

We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.

Another idiotic saying. For one, the unibomber was intelligent, he was just mentally troubled. Do you even know anything about him? Obviously not.

AGAIN, I have known this guy since I was a child. I have been in classes with him since elementary school. You dont get recruited by NASA to work with them on JP if they dont think you are brilliant. And if he was a phony I am 100% that NASA, the California Institute of Technology, and Georgia Tech would have found him out by now.

I would link you to his bio and accomplishments but you are a fucking douche bag.

Hahaha...  I know you want to make out with him but seriously.  Just bring him on and he can have a good laugh at all the nonsense you spew.

So how much does he make at georgia tech?

If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?


Please stop bragging about your friend if you aren't going to bring him on.

What about Ted Kaczynski?  You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.

Kaczynski was many things.  Stupid was not one of them.

If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?

Did you know that people can be motivated by things other than money???

Most of the good mathematicians of this century could have made a shit load of money if they had been lawyers or something, but they didn't because they didn't give a crap about the cash.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060106062005/http://www.math.columbia.edu/~lipyan/CrafoordPrize.pdf

Here's yet another tempel 1 impact animation taken by Jim Albers with an LX200 and a DSI camera:

Yet another amateur who must be "falsifying evidence for no reason" in order for FE to be true.

Hahaha...  I know you want to make out with him but seriously.  Just bring him on and he can have a good laugh at all the nonsense you spew.

So how much does he make at georgia tech?

If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?


Please stop bragging about your friend if you aren't going to bring him on.

Oh, so now money is the driving force for intelligence. The more you have the smarter you are. And here all these years I thought Mike Tyson was an idiot.

You should stop posting because you make yourself look more and more like a douche bag with each post.

Oh, so now money is the driving force for intelligence. The more you have the smarter you are.

Exactly.  It is an equivalent measure to education.  Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?

I'm sorry to break your perceptions, but a phd is little more than elbow grease.  If you work hard enough, you will get one.

Studying astrophysics will make you learn more about astrophysics, which is exactly what you want to do- if you want to know about astrophysics.  But it won't make you any smarter.

lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.

Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far.  When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 14, 2008, 06:24:52 AM

And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.

What about Ted Kaczynski?  You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.  Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers

Quote

We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.

There are different types of intelligence and different people have different strengths and weaknesses within those types.
http://www.socyberty.com/Psychology/Nine-Kinds-of-Intelligence.123896
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/diff_intell.html
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/dickinson_mi.html

lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.

Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far.  When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.

Thanks. If I had to respond I may have thrown my keyboard through the wall.

He is a troll

lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.

Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far.  When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.

Perhaps you wish it to be that way, but its not really true.

How many grad student keg parties have you been to?  Remember the guy that always yells at everyone and pukes early?  Oh yeah, and the girl who is so eager to impress everyone she will sleep with that guy.  And then the guy who just doesn't get anything, so he writes that really long thesis that references every book he has ever come near, in a desperate attempt to gain credibility...

I guarantee you this:  You too can have a shiny phd, if you just put in some hard work no matter how little you understand the deeper insights of the subject.

Just thought I'd chuck this in here and see what people made of it:
http://www.reddit.com/info/6nd90/comments/

It is quite simple really.

[1] Observational data imply the Earth is Flat;
[2] Space agancies get money for projects that can only work if the Earth is round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[3] Space agencies are not telling the truth, i.e. they are lying.

From The Free dictionary

Quote

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

• 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
• 2. A group of conspirators.
• 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
• 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Nice circular logic.

No, just zetetic science.

That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.

I have