The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Lord Wilmore on January 28, 2010, 07:59:41 AM
-
Katie: ignore any drivel you may hear from Lord Wilmore. He is of the opinion that "probable" means the same as "proven" and refuses to address the issue of how there can be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other, clear evidence for a non-flat earth. Plus his avatar is crosseyed.
If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt. So either:
a) Proven generally means that something has been shown to an extremely high degree of probability
or
b) Proven means demonstrated beyond all doubt, in which case you have used it incorrectly countless times on this very forum
Pick your poison.
-
I am alive. I can prove this.
There is no doubt about this fact, and no probability whatsoever that i am incorrect.
Dry your eyes and move on
-
I am alive. I can prove this.
I doubt it, but you're more than welcome to try:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36055.0
I'll be waiting.
-
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.
That being said at least now you are admitting that you have doubts about Flat Earth Theory.
-
Since I exist in the reality that I perceive, I am absolutely sure that I do. I am also sure that the world around me that I perceive exists as well as it tends to carry on without my presence.
We're asking if the world as we perceive it exists, and hence whether whether our perception of ourselves is in accordance with reality. To say that 'I know my perception of myself is in accordance with reality, because I am in the reality I perceive', is begging the question.
That's a different question. I never said i could prove i existed, or that anything exists. I said i can prove i am alive. This is very simple.
Can you disprove me? Or do you have any possibly reason to doubt this fact?
Or are you just arguing for arguments sake, because you're wrong? Again.
-
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.
Descartes was wrong. He relied on the existence God to make the claims he did about the world existing, and his arguments still don't hold up to scrutiny. Even the Cogito has since been somewhat undermined (I recommend you visit the thread on solipsism too).
Can you disprove me? Or do you have any possibly reason to doubt this fact?
Yes, I can. However, I'm not going to do so in here, as that's a philosophical discussion. Respond in the thread I linked, and I will happily discuss it with you there.
-
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.
And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.
-
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.
And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.
How can you prove you're alive, if you can't prove you exist? ???
Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.
-
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.
And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.
How can you prove you're alive, if you can't prove you exist? ???
Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.
Why would i need to discuss it? It's a fact.
You asked if the world as we percieve it, exists.
That's a philosophical question (and not the point i made in my original post), and by it's nature, is impossible to prove by fact. I don't deal with philosophy, i deal with fact.
Stop trying to alter my argument so you can shoot it down. It's pathetic.
-
Katie: ignore any drivel you may hear from Lord Wilmore. He is of the opinion that "probable" means the same as "proven" and refuses to address the issue of how there can be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other, clear evidence for a non-flat earth. Plus his avatar is crosseyed.
If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt. So either:
a) Proven generally means that something has been shown to an extremely high degree of probability
or
b) Proven means demonstrated beyond all doubt, in which case you have used it incorrectly countless times on this very forum
Pick your poison.
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
-
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
-
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.
-
If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt.
WUT?
Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.
"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."
Epic fail Wilmore.
-
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.
Descartes was wrong. He relied on the existence God to make the claims he did about the world existing, and his arguments still don't hold up to scrutiny. Even the Cogito has since been somewhat undermined (I recommend you visit the thread on solipsism too).
[/quote]
I believe in God. Descartes ideas make perfect sense from my frame of reference.
-
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.
No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".
-
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.
No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
-
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.
No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".
Tom, if we provide you with evidence that you can't explain you say its fake. We are in a no-win situation. Theoretically any piece of evidence no matter how convincing, could be accused by you of being fake. If we supplied more evidence to show it wasn't fake, you would just call the backup evidence fake too. And so on ad infinitum. You have done this with lots of things already.
-
Tom, if we provide you with evidence that you can't explain you say its fake. We are in a no-win situation. Theoretically any piece of evidence no matter how convincing, could be accused by you of being fake. If we supplied more evidence to show it wasn't fake, you would just call the backup evidence fake too. And so on ad infinitum. You have done this with lots of things already.
Actually we just say that NASA's evidence is fake, due to evidence demonstrating that it is.
-
Go explain the magnetic field tom.
How does the flat earth have two massive rotating spheres of magnetic metal but they aren't attracted. There are more problems but I will let you have this one first.
How do you explain underwater cables. There is a 10,000km cable from CA to Tokyo. It works. However there should be no possible way that works on the current FE maps. You can't and have not made any maps that explain all flight times and undersea cable lengths.
Have fun Tom.
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?
Temp ~ 19celcius
Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.
Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6
edit: Target is Rottnest Island from Scarborough Beach. Closest point ~18000m
Ships are unknown
Equipment setup
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8417/dsc9343002smallhm9.th.jpg) (http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9343002smallhm9.jpg)
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9329/dsc9346003smallwr1.th.jpg) (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9346003smallwr1.jpg)
(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4701/dsc9405025smallyd9.th.jpg) (http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9405025smallyd9.jpg)
Showing the elevated roadway
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2150/dsc9400022smallgt3.th.jpg) (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9400022smallgt3.jpg)
Tanker at ground
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.th.jpg) (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg)
Tanker at elevation
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6605/dsc9410028smallkj9.th.jpg) (http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9410028smallkj9.jpg)
Lighthouse at ground
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8885/dsc9370011smallip4.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9370011smallip4.jpg)
Lighthouse at elevation
(http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8692/dsc9437038smallkm7.th.jpg) (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg)
Wind generator at ground
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/3346/dsc9377015smallfp3.th.jpg) (http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9377015smallfp3.jpg)
Wind generator at elevation
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9264/dsc9434036smallmk7.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9434036smallmk7.jpg)
Yacht
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9896/dsc9395021smallxl1.th.jpg) (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9395021smallxl1.jpg)
Comms tower at ground
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6840/dsc9376014smalljd8.th.jpg) (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9376014smalljd8.jpg)
Comms tower at elevation
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7933/dsc9432035smallib4.th.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9432035smallib4.jpg)
Ship 2 at ground
(http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1151/dsc9358005smallpc3.th.jpg) (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg)
Ship 2 at elevation
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/892/dsc9409027smalldb7.th.jpg) (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9409027smalldb7.jpg)
Please discuss. I'd be interested in people's opinions.
Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.
I have some more shots of the same things as well. I took enough images to make a stitched mosaic of the island as well i think.
Oh and all the images are available in 3008x2000 pixel RAW format as well if you want them. I don't know where I can upload them though.
EDIT:
cropped image of ships taken with the D70s at 70mm. I didn't have my 300mm lens so it was this then up to the telescope
(http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2606/shipsgk3.th.jpg) (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shipsgk3.jpg)
cropped image of the island
(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1075/rottnestcropql6.th.jpg) (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rottnestcropql6.jpg)
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
And how about my pretty neutrinos? I haven't seen you in the Neutrino threads attacking that evidence either.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4296823761_38781b73f4_b.jpg)
Does that downward angle make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
-
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof. Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.
And we keep asking you for your documentation of your Monterey Bay observations. But you keep providing none. Oh, and where is your evidence that the sun is 3000 miles above the FE? As I recall, that was merely a calculation.
-
Why would i need to discuss it? It's a fact.
What's a fact? How can something be a fact if you can't prove it? ???
Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.
"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."
Epic fail Wilmore.
Please read, it helps:
it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world'
By 'real world' I mean the world as we perceive or believe it to exist.
I believe in God. Descartes ideas make perfect sense from my frame of reference.
Even if you believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that his argument for the existence of God is flawed.
-
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
-
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
That experiment's evidence doesn't agree with FET.
-
Go explain the magnetic field tom.
How does the flat earth have two massive rotating spheres of magnetic metal but they aren't attracted. There are more problems but I will let you have this one first.
How do you explain underwater cables. There is a 10,000km cable from CA to Tokyo. It works. However there should be no possible way that works on the current FE maps. You can't and have not made any maps that explain all flight times and undersea cable lengths.
Have fun Tom.
You haven't provided any data to argue against. First you need to show something that supports your model. Then we can debate against it.
-
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
That experiment's evidence doesn't agree with FET.
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
-
Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.
"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."
Epic fail Wilmore.
Please read, it helps:
Doesn't make any difference. We're perfectly capable of setting the conditions for proof to apply within the real world. In fact we do.
-
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
And where is your evidence that a sufficiently powerful telescope will restore the hull as you have claimed oh so many times?
-
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
And where is your evidence that a sufficiently powerful telescope will restore the hull as you have claimed oh so many times?
There are first hand testimonials from multiple observers in the links. Also see the Lake Michigan reference at the end.
-
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
That experiment's evidence doesn't agree with FET.
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
I meant results, will be edited.
Markjo also got to where I was going, that the telescope did not restore the hull.
-
Markjo also got to where I was going, that the telescope did not restore the hull.
The photographer didn't use a telescope.
-
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
And where is your evidence that a sufficiently powerful telescope will restore the hull as you have claimed oh so many times?
There are first hand testimonials from multiple observers in the links. Also see the Lake Michigan Reference at the end.
That's someone else's evidence. I want to know where your evidence is.
-
Markjo also got to where I was going, that the telescope did not restore the hull.
The photographer didn't use a telescope.
The photographer didn't use any type of magnification?
-
Markjo also got to where I was going, that the telescope did not restore the hull.
The photographer didn't use a telescope.
The photographer didn't use any type of magnification?
Apparently telescopes provide a different type of magnification than telephoto lenses. :-\
-
Markjo also got to where I was going, that the telescope did not restore the hull.
The photographer didn't use a telescope.
The photographer didn't use any type of magnification?
Apparently telescopes provide a different type of magnification than telephoto lenses. :-\
Damn, and I thought I had him!
-
Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.
"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."
Epic fail Wilmore.
Please read, it helps:
Doesn't make any difference. We're perfectly capable of setting the conditions for proof to apply within the real world. In fact we do.
You're kind of missing the point here: those conditions do not involve the removal of all doubt.
-
You're kind of missing the point here: those conditions do not involve the removal of all doubt.
And you're missing the point: yes they do.
It always makes me laugh how you deliberately fail so awfully. You are doing it deliberately?
-
Tell me how the magnetic sphere of the earth works in FE?
Tell me how undersea cables from LA to Tokyo work in FE? All maps provided until now have a much greater minimum distance from LA to Tokyo.
-
That's someone else's evidence. I want to know where your evidence is.
I haven't seen any sunken ships.
Dogplatter has seen them, however, and tell us that they don't really sink all the way as most imagine, but sort of sink just a little and then fade out.
Apparently telescopes provide a different type of magnification than telephoto lenses. :-\
Telescopes provide significantly more magnification than camera lenses.
-
You're kind of missing the point here: those conditions do not involve the removal of all doubt.
And you're missing the point: yes they do.
It always makes me laugh how you deliberately fail so awfully. You are doing it deliberately?
Instead of making big claims and not bothering to back them up, why don't you 'prove' to everyone why I "fail so awfully"? The scientific method (what is used to make conclusions about the 'real world') is empiricist in nature, and empiricism does not require or even expect the removal of doubt.
-
I haven't seen any half sunken ships.
Dogplatter has, however, and tell us that they don't really sink all the way as most imagine, but sort of sink just a little and then fade out.
Well I don't know about you folks, but this third hand news is good enough for me. ::)
Telescopes provide significantly more magnification than camera lenses.
Unless you have a telescopic lens.
Instead of making big claims and not bothering to back them up, why don't you 'prove' to everyone why I "fail so awfully"?
How can I prove something to you when you're standpoint is that proof does not exist.
Go back and reread my posts. You should also lrn3grammar. Especially when you're trying to talk down to people.
-
Well if you think that things can be proved, then surely you should be able to prove at least that much!
Can't see what was wrong with my post grammatically, but then again I can't see how that's relevant either.
-
That's someone else's evidence. I want to know where your evidence is.
I haven't seen any sunken ships.
Then you have no evidence of your own. Thanks Tom, I'm so glad that we finally cleared that up.
Apparently telescopes provide a different type of magnification than telephoto lenses. :-\
Telescopes provide significantly more magnification than camera lenses.
And by putting a camera mount on a telescope, you have just made a camera lens.
-
Then you have no evidence of your own. Thanks Tom, I'm so glad that we finally cleared that up.
I've never claimed to have seen a sinking ship. ???
And by putting a camera mount on a telescope, you have just made a camera lens.
The photographer didn't put a camera mount on a telescope. No telescopes were used.
-
Well if you think that things can be proved, then surely you should be able to prove at least that much!
I've already explained this. Go back and reread my posts.
However you're making a stake much like this:
"I do not believe ducks exist. Convince me ducks exist. Without using the word duck."
You've already made your mind up, and in this case you refute the concept of validity of argument.
-
The photographer didn't put a camera mount on a telescope. No telescopes were used.
So there was no "magnifi[cation] of images of distant objects?" (source (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+telescope&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a))
-
The photographer didn't put a camera mount on a telescope. No telescopes were used.
So there was no "magnifi[cation] of images of distant objects?" (source (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+telescope&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a))
Perhaps a little. But as we can see from the images, not much.
-
The photographer didn't put a camera mount on a telescope. No telescopes were used.
So there was no "magnifi[cation] of images of distant objects?" (source (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+telescope&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a))
Perhaps a little. But as we can see from the images, not much.
Therefor, a telescope. Don't complain about it anymore, okay?
-
Therefor, a telescope. Don't complain about it anymore, okay?
Not much magnification equals a telescope? ???
Last I checked telescopes provided lots of magnification.
-
Well if you think that things can be proved, then surely you should be able to prove at least that much!
I've already explained this. Go back and reread my posts.
However you're making a stake much like this:
"I do not believe ducks exist. Convince me ducks exist. Without using the word duck."
You've already made your mind up, and in this case you refute the concept of validity of argument.
I'm not talking about conceptual proofs in argument or logic. I'm talking about proving things about the world around us. Obviously one can prove something in argument based on defined terms, but that kind of reasoning cannot be applied to the 'real world'.
When conclusions are based on experience (as in science), then the best we can hope for is to guage the probability of something; absolute certainty is not possible.
-
Therefor, a telescope. Don't complain about it anymore, okay?
Not much magnification equals a telescope? ???
Last I checked telescopes provided lots of magnification.
Last I checked, a telescope was a "a magnifier of images of distant objects. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=telescope)" You admitted that it fit the definition.
-
When conclusions are based on experience (as in science), then the best we can hope for is to guage the probability of something; absolute certainty is not possible.
Not at all. If you're having difficulty with providing a proof then you need to tighten the conditions which apply. It's that simple.
-
What about balloons with camera that reach near space?
-
Then you have no evidence of your own. Thanks Tom, I'm so glad that we finally cleared that up.
I've never claimed to have seen a sinking ship. ???
But you have claimed repeatedly that sufficient magnification would restore the hull of a partially sunken ship. Why would you make such a claim if you don't have any of your own evidence to support it?
And by putting a camera mount on a telescope, you have just made a camera lens.
The photographer didn't put a camera mount on a telescope. No telescopes were used.
Irrelevant. The fact is that there is essentially no difference between a powerful telephoto lens and a telescope. Last time I checked, there is nothing in the definition of a telescope that says that it must have a minimum magnification factor.
-
Why would i need to discuss it? It's a fact.
What's a fact? How can something be a fact if you can't prove it? ???
The fact that i am alive, is a fact. And i can prove it, i never said i couldn't, i said i wasn't going to discuss it with you any more.
You really should pay more attention, you just keep making yourself look silly. Do you find reading difficult?
-
Wilmore, I appreciate the fact that you now admit, at least, that you can't prove FET beyond any shadow of doubt. What you fail to appreciate or comprehend is, as Markjo, TD and numerous others have correctly pointed out, you have also utterly and miserably failed to reasonably demonstrate that FET is more probable than RET. Like it or not, preponderence of evidence does indeed heavily favor RET. The only way you can continue to deny that fact is that is to obstinately insist that any and all evidence that contradicts your viewpoint is necessarily faked by some unprovable and highly improbable conspiracy! Every time you post, you confirm, in my mind, that you are the most extreme example of solipsistic arrogance I have ever encountered (with the possible exception of Tom Bishop, who I have reason to doubt really believes all the nonsense he posts).
-
When conclusions are based on experience (as in science), then the best we can hope for is to guage the probability of something; absolute certainty is not possible.
Not at all. If you're having difficulty with providing a proof then you need to tighten the conditions which apply. It's that simple.
No, it isn't. Such proof would not remove all doubt, which is the issue at hand.
The fact that i am alive, is a fact. And i can prove it, i never said i couldn't, i said i wasn't going to discuss it with you any more.
You really should pay more attention, you just keep making yourself look silly. Do you find reading difficult?
Maybe you should pay more attention:
Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.
If you don't want to discuss it, then please stop responding. If you come in here making bald statements but refuse to discuss them, don't expect anyone to take your word for it. This "I CAN prove it but it's a secret" line you're trying to peddle is only making one person here look "silly".
-
Wilmore, I appreciate the fact that you now admit, at least, that you can't prove FET beyond any shadow of doubt.
What do you mean "now admit"? ???
What's more, this is a position I really have held for a long time. Observe:
My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth)
I concluded that the earth is probably flat.
All the sensory evidence I have ever experienced indicate to me that the earth is probably flat.
My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth)
I believe the earth is probably flat; I would never deny the possibility of anything.
It's not like I pulled this qualification out of thin air.
-
The fact still remains that you have utterly failed to demonstrate that FET is more probable than or even as probable as RET, and you still rely heavily on the contention that the most compelling evidence is faked by some vast, unprovable and highly improbable conspiracy. Some of you (I'm not sure about you, in particular) even go to to the ridiculous extreme of claiming that the lack of evidence of this conspiracy only proves the effectivness and, perhaps, the very existence of the conspiracy. This is as ridiculous as the Medieval witch hunters' claims that an accused witch's denial that she was a witch was proof that she was indeed a witch.
-
Actually, I generally argue that if we had proof of The Conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy anymore. You can't really blame us for that, it being the very nature of a successful conspiracy that nobody can prove its existence.
-
That is still an extremely weak, if not utterly foolish, justification for believing in a conspiracy! I still maintain that it is every bit as ridiculous and insubstantial as the Medieval witch hunters' rationalization.
-
My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth)
My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth)
I admit that it is somewhat reassuring to me that you don't entirely discount the possibility of a "generally spherical earth." Perhaps you are not quite as irrational and arrogant as I have accused you of being. There may be hope for you yet! :)
-
That is still an extremely weak, if not utterly foolish, justification for believing in a conspiracy! I still maintain that it is every bit as ridiculous and insubstantial as the Medieval witch hunters' rationalization.
The thing is, I don't believe in The Conspiracy because we can't prove it exists. It's just that if FET is correct (and however wrong you may think I am, I believe it is), there must be a conspiracy.
I admit that it is somewhat reassuring to me that you don't entirely discount the possibility of a "generally spherical earth." Perhaps you are not quite as irrational and arrogant as I have accused you of being. There may be hope for you yet! :)
To believe absolutely in anything that can only be assessed in terms of probability is a totally dogmatic mindset, and I think we can all agree that dogmatic thinking has done more damage to mankind than anything else =)
-
The frustrating thing to me is that you can only maintain your conviction by rejecting the most compelling evidence for RET by dogmatic insistence that said evidence has necessarily been faked by the hypothetical conspiracy you insist on believing in, and then using the (apparently) compelling nature of said evidence (or inability to prove it was faked) as evidence of the effectiveness and existence of the conspiracy!
I think we can all agree that dogmatic thinking has done more damage to mankind than anything else =)
I couldn't agree with you more, on that point! Especially religious dogma epoused by individuals who have managed to amass and ruthlessly use political and/or military power to intimidate others into accepting it.
-
The fact that i am alive, is a fact. And i can prove it, i never said i couldn't, i said i wasn't going to discuss it with you any more.
You really should pay more attention, you just keep making yourself look silly. Do you find reading difficult?
Maybe you should pay more attention:
Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.
If you don't want to discuss it, then please stop responding. If you come in here making bald statements but refuse to discuss them, don't expect anyone to take your word for it. This "I CAN prove it but it's a secret" line you're trying to peddle is only making one person here look "silly".
No-one said it was a secret, there you go again, putting words in people's mouth, to try and support your argument. It's very simple to prove, i could if you liked. I said i wasn't going to discuss it, there is nothing to discuss. It is a fact, very simply, and requires no real discussion, unless of course you're going to argue the point that i'm not alive?
In which case, i suggest you create a new thread, as i can see that argument getting silly, quickly.
-
That is still an extremely weak, if not utterly foolish, justification for believing in a conspiracy! I still maintain that it is every bit as ridiculous and insubstantial as the Medieval witch hunters' rationalization.
The thing is, I don't believe in The Conspiracy because we can't prove it exists. It's just that if FET is correct (and however wrong you may think I am, I believe it is), there must be a conspiracy.
So then it becomes a matter of whose science is more credible.
-
Actually, I generally argue that if we had proof of The Conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy anymore. You can't really blame us for that, it being the very nature of a successful conspiracy that nobody can prove its existence.
Actually it is the very nature of a lie that it is more likely to be revealed the more people it is told to.
-
Dogplatter has seen them, however, and tell us that they don't really sink all the way as most imagine, but sort of sink just a little and then fade out.
If there was anyone called Dogplatter on this forum, which there isn't, he would be wrong.
-
No-one said it was a secret, there you go again, putting words in people's mouth, to try and support your argument. It's very simple to prove, i could if you liked.
Of course I'd like you to do so. It's precisely what I've been inviting you to do for the last few pages.
I said i wasn't going to discuss it, there is nothing to discuss. It is a fact, very simply, and requires no real discussion, unless of course you're going to argue the point that i'm not alive?
Well, isn't your existence exactly what I'm asking you to prove? ???
In which case, i suggest you create a new thread, as i can see that argument getting silly, quickly.
I did create a new thread, and I invited you to post in it all the way back on the first page. I agree the discussion is not really suitable for this board, which is why I invited you to join the thread we already have going on the same subject.
-
I said i wasn't going to discuss it, there is nothing to discuss. It is a fact, very simply, and requires no real discussion, unless of course you're going to argue the point that i'm not alive?
Well, isn't your existence exactly what I'm asking you to prove? ???
I theorise that Wilmore is not alive. Probabilitise me wrong.
-
I'd rather have this discussion in the other thread, but I'm happy to have it here.
TD, there is zero wrong with your statement. Truthfully, I could not prove you wrong, and nor could anyone else.
-
I'd rather have this discussion in the other thread, but I'm happy to have it here.
TD, there is zero wrong with your statement. Truthfully, I could not prove you wrong, and nor could anyone else.
You could prove him wrong with a live webcam chat, or perhaps by meeting him in person. It is always possible to disprove a position, but impossible to conclusively prove it. One can try to disprove the negative of a position to try and prove it, but one can never prove that they have fully encapsulated the negative in their definition.
Of course, I can't prove that my idea about disprove is true...
-
There are more fundamental reasons why you still could not be certain. Ultimately a web chat would still be something I experience via the senses, and all you need is a little Cartesian doubt or a basic grasp of The Matrix to recognise how the existence of the world as we perceive it is by no means certain.
-
All perfectly valid points, but I still don't understand how this could lead one to believe that the Earth is Flat.
-
No, it isn't. Such proof would not remove all doubt, which is the issue at hand.
Oh FFS is there a God that can intervene here? Please anyone?!
Yes it would remove all doubt. You define your conditions until doubt is removed. This is a fundamental concept to the term proof.
-
No, it isn't. Such proof would not remove all doubt, which is the issue at hand.
Oh FFS is there a God that can intervene here? Please anyone?!
Yes it would remove all doubt. You define your conditions until doubt is removed. This is a fundamental concept to the term proof.
I'm not God, but I will intervene here. I think Wilmore and Lice Farm are coming from two angles that cannot coincide. Wilmore is stating that regardless of what things you find, you can never be 100% certain that you are perceiving reality, and therefore any "proof" is subject to conditions. Therefore there can never be any absolute rock solid proof, from a philosophical point of view, and from that he is quite correct.
Meanwhile, Lice Farm is using the scientific approach to proof, which is to take certain base concepts which have already been shown to be as true as possible as absolutes, and build on those. In other words, if something has been shown always to be true, and something else has been shown always to be true, then a concept that rests on those two truths might also be taken as true. This can also be a correct definition of proof in science, and works perfectly in known real world experience, yet it is incompatible with the philosophical viewpoint.
So I think we all need to agree to differ here, as these two meanings of proof cannot be reconciled. Now Wilmore has explained his understanding of what proof means to him, even though I'd tend to go along with LF's definition myself, I better understand why he and I disagreed in the other thread and I think our row was more of a misunderstanding than anything else. If I had understood Wilmore's views better, I would not have been so nit picky with him. I am grateful that he has cleared things up a bit.
-
I genuinely appreciate your respectful tone TD, so don't take this the wrong way, but I actually don't think LF is even correct in that respect. As long as scientific 'proof' is based on observable evidence and repeatable experiments, then ultimately it remains a question of probability.
In science, you perform an experiment numerous times, and every time get the same result. Therefore we conclude that in all probability, given the same conditions we will always get the same result, and we draw conclusions based on that. However, there is always a possibility, however remote, that were we to perform the experiment again under the same circumstances, we would not get the same result, and this would undermine our original conclusion.
For that reason, I do not believe you can prove anything about the 'real world' beyond all doubt, even if you avoid more philosophical questions.
-
For that reason, I do not believe you can prove anything about the 'real world' beyond all doubt, even if you avoid more philosophical questions.
Maybe not beyond all doubt, but there is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. The more often and reliably a theory is successfully confirmed with the same, predictable results, the more differant ways to test the theory are found that yield results consistant with it, and the greater the number of highly qualified and respected people who honestly confirm those results, the less reasonable it becomes to continue to doubt it.
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.
RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new). rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.
RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new). rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.
So the older theory doesn't need proof?
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.
RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new). rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.
It's not "word tricks." It's extremely simple logic. Something that is rarely grasped by some on these forums.
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.
RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new). rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.
It's not "word tricks." It's extremely simple logic. Something that is rarely grasped by some on these forums.
have u ever read earth not a globe?
-
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
WE AREN'T ASKING FOR ROWBOTHAM'S EVIDENCE (Which is crap, anyway). WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
You literally can never say "read Earth Not a Globe" ever again if first hand evidence is the only evidence that counts. I love how FE'ers don't have to follow a single rule they put in place.
RE is the new theory therefore it needs to prove itself. dont play word tricks with us. u gotta give us the evidence bcause u r the one giving us a new theory (relatively new). rowbothmans book was just there to help solidify the old theory.
It's not "word tricks." It's extremely simple logic. Something that is rarely grasped by some on these forums.
have u ever read earth not a globe?
Strawman. I will not go off-topic. You can't have it both ways Tom. Either we accept second-hand evidence, or you completely throw out everything in ENAG and never spout off your tired response again.
-
have u ever read earth not a globe?
I have. It's wrong in oh so many ways.
-
Merely taking ENaG seriously is extremely compelling evidence that one either hasn't really read it or is very seriously scientifically and mathematically illiterate. I seriously doubt that even Rowbotham himself really took it seriously.
FE'ers often claim that RET is somehow a lucrative scam for RET conspirators. There is little doubt, however, that Rowbotham made a lot of money off of his lectures and writings. He charged admission to them, and many people flocked to them, often to ridicule him and attempt to refute him. When he died, he left quite an impressive estate to his heirs, according to what I have read about him.
I have also read that when confronted with contrary evidence to which he had no good answer, he simply ended the lecture and left the stage. I am convinced that he was far more a showman and scam artist than he was a scientist. As I have tried to point out in another thread, he could not possibly have actually performed some of the experiments he claimed he did. If he had, he could not possibly have honestly come to some of the conclusions he stated.
-
I wouldn't be too surprised if one of Rowbotham's pseudonyms (aliases) was Barnum.