Flat Earth Theory - A Meta-Physical Approach

I believe this is the best place for this subject. While I am willing to discuss it, it appears as though a lot of the discourse in the other forums are geared around argumentation and not an exchange of ideas. While I enjoy discussion, there must be a goal to it, either my own understanding grows in appreciation of another's case, or theirs does, but talking with someone whose primary concern is proving you wrong regardless of the ramifications of their own opinion is an excercise in timewasting.
Instead, I will break this down here for a more uncluttered perspective. If anything I say is unclear, I welcome requests for clarification - I understand that is allowed by the rules of this section - but playground fights, even genteel ones, are pointless. In light of this, I want to begin with more housekeeping.

I do not expect people to agree with every word I write here, but what I at least hope for is understanding. These are not the same things. However, there are limitations to this: what I say can, like many things, be broken down into two categories. There are facts, and there are the implications between those facts. One could liken this to bricks and mortar, one are the building blocks, the other connects them.
The implications are correct. They are the part I must stress, as they tend to be where misunderstanding surfaces. Meta-physical approaches are new to a lot of people, in my experience, and that seems to be especially the case on this site. As such, I must make this part clear. If you want to understand what I am saying, then if any part is unclear, try to see how the implication follows. That mindset, once it clicks, should help you.
The facts however are where I suspect most disagreement will be rooted. This is fine. I am of course willing to defend them, albeit in other threads so as to abide by the rules of this section. If your objection is to an implication, then please inform me here so that I can clarify it, if your goal is understanding and not winning. If your objection is to a fact, and you are genuine in wanting to debate this and not just wanting to win an argument, start a thread elsewhere and PM me to ensure I am aware of it.
Now, let us begin.


What is the Meta-Physical?
The basics. Meta-physics is simply the foundation of physics. I have seen this topic rejected as 'Philosophy 101,' but, while this is basic on philosophical terms, that in no way makes it irrelevant. Every subject begins with the basics. Philosophy however is what underpins the scientific method: we would have no conclusions without it. While in truth much of what I am about to describe better falls under the banner of epistemology, meta-physics gives a better illustration of how it functions.
The first question that can be asked is how do we know anything?
Descartes famously began this thought experiment centuries ago. If he assumed as little as possible, allowing for possibilities such as a demon hoodwinking his every perception, what is it that he could conclude? He began with 'I think, therefore I am.' That the very fact that he was capable of thought meant that there was a him to think it. He continued in much the same way.
This is the philosophical starting point. The scientific starting point begins some steps ahead, with the evidential method. If evidence points towards a possibility, then that possibility is preferred. The problem is, with science without philosophy, nothing suggests why this path is right.
This can be the hardest point to grasp for people new to the field, so forgive me if I spend some time on it.

Why is it that we believe evidence?
Within the confines of the evidential system, this question has no meaningful answer. One of the premises of this system is that the only form of justification is evidence; there is no other reason to believe anything under this system. So, then, if one was to ask why you believed in the evidential system, the only answer the system allows for is evidential. Certainly, you could list achievements of the system, but all of that fills the role of evidence. When what is under question is the validity of the process, this functions only to presuppose it.
Or, to break this point down into smaller pieces:

1. The evidential system is believed.
2. The basis for this belief is either A) rooted in evidence, B) rooted in something other than evidence, C) not rooted in anything.
3. A is the only basis allowed for by the evidential system.
Then:
4. The reason we trust the evidence presented in A is because of the evidential system.
5. If 4 was not the case, if we did not follow evidence, A would not be a basis for anything.
6. A is circular. It proves the evidential system based upon the assumption of the evidential system.
7. The only acceptable bases for the evidential system and B and C, non-evidential views.

So then, in order to justifiably use evidence, we must take several steps back. There must be some foundation for evidence to be any better a system than any other. As it is, this system works only by axiom, stating 'evidence works' but being unable to demonstrate that system is better then any alternative without recourse to circular tactics. One could just as easily take 'because I say so' as an axiom. In this case, the evidential system cannot allow for comparison.
If axiom is all there is, the evidential system alone cannot show why it is preferrable to an alternative.
You can list achievements, as I said, but this only works if someone already follows the evidential system. If compared to the 'because I say so' axiom, someone could disregard that evidence with a sentence, and the system is not equipped to compare the two bases.
However, this does not inherently mean the evidential system is wrong. It simply means that it is incomplete: the evidential system cannot persuade anyone of its truth unless they already adhere to it, but this is more because it is insular, it is equipped only for internal matters. A system that lacks these flaws, if appended, could make the system function fully.

What is the alternative?
There are, to my mind, two respectable alternatives to the strict evidential system.
The first, which I will not spend so much time on, is the radical skeptic approach. This is not what I believe, for reasons I will get into. This states that nothing can be known, that knowledge itself is something that can never be attained because it is reliant on no solid basis. If we are wrong about the veracity offered by evidence, then nothing could replace it that does not share the same flaw. It is then believed that we know, and can know, nothing.
The second alternative, which I stand by, is that of a self-supporting axiom. The evidential approach fails because it cannot justify its own existence because the tools it has are only for internal matters, but this does not mean every axiom is subject to this same problem.

(Break here as the site appears to have a silent character limit. Continued below).

(Continuation)

In general, science does make certain assumptions, beyond the usefulness of evidence. At a basic level, these assumptions include the idea that experiments can be repeated and will give the same result, that location does not matter for an experiment so long as forces are not different, that the universe can be comprehended. If any one of these is at fault, then a great deal of work is meaningless, but what really is the foundation for these beyond wishful thinking?
The statement I offer is this: Every question has an answer.
This can be phrased in any number of ways, but at a basic level, what it means is this: everything that you can ask, it both has a response, and a theoretical way to find that response. This encompasses the scientific assumptions, promising that the universe can be understood, and that the methods we use will work to understand it, but it goes further. It gives us a foundation for the evidential approach, as it rejects the demon proposed by Descartes.
Further, it is not an insular system. It is impossible to reject this axiom, by its nature; if you were to claim that no question could be answered, you are in that very moment answering the question of the truth of this axiom. It is, as I said, self-supporting. Any rejection of it is incoherent as it requires the use of the axiom for proof.
Now, not every question has a yes or no answer, and not every answer is easy to find, but the very fact we know that there are answers out there and that they can be found offers us a powerful tool.

This is what underpins physics. Without this philosophical standpoint, there is no reason to accept any physical claim, or anything based upon evidence. However, it goes further. Physics is limited in what it can apply to, but this offers us a new lens through which to look for truth.

The Applications of Meta-Physics
Like I say, I do not expect you to believe this axiom simply because I say so. I have given the foundation for it above, though I am wary of how clear my reasoning may have been. Regardless, from this point on I will be taking it as given so that I may progress.
Suppose I were to ask you, what comes after death?
This is not really a question the evidential approach alone is equipped to answer. It can tell you the brute facts of brain activity, but not the subjective perceptions inherent in it. Science can tell you how something happens, but not why it does.
But with this axiom, the answer is immediately apparent. There must be some form of experience after death, because if there were not, there would be no way to find out the answer. If we were to cease to be, then there would be no way to confirm that, one cannot report one's own ceased existence.

Now is also a good time to discuss non-answers. Some time ago, CS Lewis proposed a variation of an old argument, intended as a proof of God. The claim is:

Every natural or innate desire we experience points to something real. We have a desire for perfect happiness, a perfect guide: therefore, this happiness and guide do exist.

Why would we desire something that has no chance of being real? What is the benefit, evolutionary or otherwise, to being doomed to perpetual disappointment?
Now, naturally the form this happiness takes does vary based on each human, but the emotion itself does not, only the path to it. One person might be happy with quiet, relaxing contentment, while another wants high-stakes adrenaline, but in each case their aim is to be happy.
This argument from desire, as it is named, can be strengthened with reference to this axiom. As opposed to a statement, we ask the question: why do all human beings desire happiness?

The normal answer to such scientific questions is 'just because,' or something that fills that role. This is not an answer; in fact, this is the bane of all scientific inquiry. 'Just because' speaks to the end of explanations, as soon as this is accept as the answer to the question, why not have it be the answer to another question?
The scientific approach will often say that if you ask 'why' repeatedly, you end up at 'just because,' and it is a childish thing to do. Meta-physics answers that the moment 'just because' is ever accepted as a terminating answer, there is no reason not to apply it sooner. Why does the sun go down? Just because. All scientific understanding is lost as soon as this is believed to be a valid answer.
Further, it is not an answer. It does not further understanding, and indeed could be used in response to anything. As a non-answer, it does not satisfy our axiom, so the question must be answered by other means.
The scientific approach can create small ripples, but they only succeed in tweaking the question, not truly resolving it. There must be some answer.
CS Lewis proposes an answer. True, this does not prove that it is the only answer, but it is the most meaningful one. Indeed, there are many reasons to suppose the existence of some eternal mind: how else could qualia be chronicled for locations that have not been seen or reached?
This is another example of how this particular system functions. When you know that an answer is there, and that a route to it exists, it prevents 'just because' reasoning.

It is possible to ask questions about these answers. This is to be expected. Each answer expands our knowledge, and so gives us more to ask questions about. The amount of information contained in just one scrap of the universe borders on the infinite. While some subjects will overlap, they will not always, and there is the potential to go on asking questions endlessly.
This does not mean those questions have no answers, just that there are many, many answers. It also further indicates the existence of an Observer above us in intellect and capacity, that can comprehend the infinite and already knows each answer. Humans however, as reasoning observers, must also be capable of reaching this point in theory.
Simply because we can find an answer though, does not guarantee we will. How many grains of straw are in a bale of hay? We know that question must have an answer, but counting them is no simple matter. Equally, it might take an eternity to answer some questions, but knowing that the answer exists can limit the possibilities.

(Break again. Continued below)

(The rest)

What does any of this have to do with the Flat Earth anyway?
There are many paths to this conclusion. One is a variation of CS Lewis's argument above.
The idea of a flat earth appears to be an immortal one. Across all of history, and across multiple cultures, the idea of the world we live on as a disc has been perpetuated, completely independently. There is art, story, and tales all dedicated to this concept.
One must ask: why?
Perhaps it is that the world simply appears flat. But this is not so; one can venture to a hill, or to the beach. And even more, even were this to be the source of the belief, the details of this ever-reviving idea are too similar for this to work. Why a disc, of all shapes?
There are individual breaks from the pattern, but one must look at when they arise. While it is true the concept of a round earth is a much older one than people think, the flat still came first. It was in response to evidence that the idea was adjusted. The same can be said in many instances. Evidence caused people to turn away from the flat earth, to the round.
But what is evidence? It is invalid if one does not have a basis from which to accept it. All this evidence is either incorrect and a false reading of the physical facts of the world, the same as many throughout history, or it is correct and there must be some explanation for why this idea keeps surfacing.

Why would a false idea be so inherent? If it takes readings to draw people away from this false idea, then where did the original come from?
It is too widespread and too similar an idea to be explained by scientific error. It is in a curious position of being universal, across countless cultures, but also limited; it took minimal evidence for cultures to turn away from the idea. While the evidential approach would suggest this makes the position weak, the evidential approach cannot sustain itself alone, so we must approach it from this direction also.
This question must have an answer, and 'they just did' is not one.
Something akin to the argument from desire is applicable here. A sense of the truth, or an example of a desire that must be met, would answer this question.

Alternatively, one could consider a connection between the instincts of the human race and the fact that we must have the ability to comprehend everything. If this is the case, then instinct might tell us more about truths than any experiments ever could.

I may come back and edit this as I feel I was unclear at a few points, and this final section particularly can be expanded, but in broad strokes I hope this helps elaborate upon the other starting points from which a flat earth may be supported. 

You have put a lot of effort into these posts, so I have some sympathy for you, but this is not with the Flat Earth Information Repository is for. Choose another part of the forum for me to move it to.

If you don't want to deal with JackBlack fisking every sentence of your posts, just put him on ignore. He really isn't interested in having a conversation, but other people are.

So you got upset that I repeatedly refuted your claims and pointed out your projection so you asked for your other thread to be locked and now you make effectively the same claims in this thread?

Just like in the 2 prior threads, your alternative is no better. A self-supporting axiom suffers from the exact same flaw, that it is circular and thus not actually supported.

1. The self-supporting axiom is believed.
2. The basis for this belief is either A) rooted in the self-supported axiom, B) rooted in something not dependent upon the self-supported axiom, C) not rooted in anything.
Then:
3. The reason we trust the support presented in A is because of the self-supported axiom.
4. If 3 was not the case, if we did not accept the self-supported axiom, A would not be a basis for anything.
5. A is circular. It proves the self-supported axiom is based upon the assumption of the self-supported axiom.
6. The only acceptable bases for the self-supported axiom are B and C, views were the self-supported axiom is not taken as a starting point.

So again, your alternative is no better than just accepting that evidence works, and using evidence to show that it works.
The axiom you offer is no better than the assumptions of science to allow the evidence based system to work.

Ultimately there are 2 "rational" options.
The one you call the radical sceptic approach, or a more restricted one which accepts the limitations of any system but chooses to use one, such that we can attempt to better out understanding knowing that it may be flawed.

The statement I offer is this: Every question has an answer.
Further, it is not an insular system. It is impossible to reject this axiom, by its nature; if you were to claim that no question could be answered, you are in that very moment answering the question of the truth of this axiom. It is, as I said, self-supporting. Any rejection of it is incoherent as it requires the use of the axiom for proof.

You are making it a false dichotomy.
They are not the only alternatives.
Another option is that SOME questions have answers while others do not.
Even if the answer to "Does every question have an answer?" is no, that doesn't mean any other question needs an answer.
You can literally have just that 1 question having an answer, while every other question does not.

Even trying to appeal to incoherence doesn't help your case as you are trying to establish a basis for coherence.
If you truly embrace the daemon which could change anything at any time, coherence goes out the window.
Coherence is being logical and consistent. If the demon is continually changing things so it is completely inconsistent throughout time and space and direction and potentially even for different observers/instruments, the very meaning of truth can be discarded and you can have a completely incoherent system.

Likewise, the radical septic view has no basis for any form of truth or logic, and thus is likewise an incoherent system.

So just like in your other thread, it is quite clear that your axiom can be rejected without needing to accept it.

So if you want to say it must be true, you need more support than that.

And unlike your false characterisation/insult, I am not doing this for the sake of arguing, but because as contradictory as it may seem, I actually care about the truth and a very large part of that is accepting that what we know of the world will intrinsically be incomplete due to our limited ability to understand the world; that our world view (including how we obtain more "knowledge") will always be incomplete.

But with this axiom, the answer is immediately apparent. There must be some form of experience after death, because if there were not, there would be no way to find out the answer. If we were to cease to be, then there would be no way to confirm that, one cannot report one's own ceased existence.

And that is the kind of wild speculation that I oppose, and why I care about the truth.
It is also another example of where your false dichotomy falls apart.
What if instead of ALL questions having answers, those directly about physical reality have answers, while those like these do not?

Then there is also the problem with your link.
What if there is an answer, but there is no way to obtain it?
That the answer to what happens you die is that you cease to exist, and no one will ever be able to know or prove or demonstrate that answer?

If you don't want to deal with JackBlack fisking every sentence of your posts, just put him on ignore. He really isn't interested in having a conversation, but other people are.

Is jackblack your boss so that you can't do anything about it? You are the admin right? Why can't you just ban him outright, or put him in AR, and let him fisk all possible responses as he pleases?

Would anyone else tolerate his AR type of rants right smack in the upper forums?

Of course not. Then, it is up to you to get rid of troublesome users like jackblack.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 26, 2020, 06:54:50 PM

If you don't want to deal with JackBlack fisking every sentence of your posts, just put him on ignore. He really isn't interested in having a conversation, but other people are.

Is jackblack your boss so that you can't do anything about it? You are the admin right? Why can't you just ban him outright, or put him in AR, and let him fisk all possible responses as he pleases?

Would anyone else tolerate his AR type of rants right smack in the upper forums?

Of course not. Then, it is up to you to get rid of troublesome users like jackblack.

I have to say this aspect of the site is a disappointment. While I have not been here long, the moderation's priorities are unlike any other site I have seen. From a curious search, and your comments here, I have the feeling this is not a new problem, and is instead one that has been raising objections for a while (almost every result when searching his name is a complaint), but it continues unabated. Meanwhile she is content to hand out a three-day ban for the crime of not being online for a couple of hours.

If it was the wrong forum, I accept that, I was unsure of the details, but surely there is some area on this site where one can carry on an informative discussion and debate? On most sites I have been on, that is assumed by a user's presence, but it does not seem to be the case here. If I want to talk with someone who is interested in having a discussion, is there any area you can offer?
And why is someone that you acknowledge is not allowed to post here? What do they bring to the site that is worth this?

but surely there is some area on this site where one can carry on an informative discussion and debate

You can, but only if you are actually willing to engage and admit you can be wrong.

I find that typically those who complain the most are those with the problem.
So how about instead of complaining and insulting you actually try discussing.

Can you justify your claim?
Can you actually show something wrong with my argument, like explaining how you can use an axiom to support itself, which is literally circular reasoning, without it being circular reasoning?
Or why rejecting your axiom means accepting it, even though there is the option to have some, but not all, questions having an answer?

Are you actually interested in having a discussion with someone that can present a challenge to your beliefs, or are you just interested in saying what you believe to be true and responding to challenges you think you can refute?

I have to say this aspect of the site is a disappointment. While I have not been here long, the moderation's priorities are unlike any other site I have seen.

There are other flat Earth forums. Perhaps try tfes.org which is much stricter in silencing people that disagree with FE believers. Or make a YouTube video.

If I want to talk with someone who is interested in having a discussion, is there any area you can offer?

If you want to have a discussion but be protected from anyone who disagrees with you, there is no such place anywhere in the world. If you put an idea out there, be prepared for people to both agree with it if they do, and disagree with it if they think it's wrong.

I've had long discussions here with more than one person who told me 1+1=2 is wrong. They were very sincere and adamant and enthusiastic about their opinion, but should I just shrug and agree with them because they were so sure they were right? There is no immunity to being told you are wrong if you want to have a discussion.

If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.

If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.

That is not how it works.

Were it not for your continuous trolling you'd be forced to accept defeat in 30 seconds.

But, just like jackblack, you are able to survive because the admin and mods are RE and will not touch the mayhem that you cause here.

Tfes.org rejected you since they realized you bring nothing of value to their forum. They won't tolerate you or jackblack. This is what we need here also, for the admin/mods to simply apply the rules and get rid of troublemakers.

jackblack is not a free thinker, but a troll, who is insidiously trying to impose his will on everyone else, through fisking and trolling.

I ask the very same question: "What do they bring to the site that is worth this?

If you want to have a discussion but be protected from anyone who disagrees with you, there is no such place anywhere in the world. If you put an idea out there, be prepared for people to both agree with it if they do, and disagree with it if they think it's wrong.

I've had long discussions here with more than one person who told me 1+1=2 is wrong. They were very sincere and adamant and enthusiastic about their opinion, but should I just shrug and agree with them because they were so sure they were right? There is no immunity to being told you are wrong if you want to have a discussion.

If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.

I too have had lengthy discussions with people who disagreed with me. Don't think I have not. In those situations, I learn from the arguments they make, as they learn from mine. That is what I assumed the purpose of these discussions is: they are a way to better your own understanding by seeing what objections others raise.
I don't see the point in having discussions for the purpose of arguing. That sounds draining and, ultimately, futile. I prefer to talk with someone who is offering something new, because they are making an interesting case.

If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach. If asked to consider the foundation of the evidential approach, he doesn't offer anything. In a previous thread he offered the radical skeptic position as a counter, but here he decries it. He attempted to change the topic in another thread as opposed to discussing the one at hand, and in another he changed the meaning of an argument to gain victory, not understanding. He has said explicitly that he will not accept the possibility that I could answer any of his questions, he just wants me to admit I am wrong.
He has no position of his own. He is a devil's advocate, one who argues against, but has nothing to argue for. He simply wants to take the position of most trouble. What am I to learn about the position of someone who will not commit? And it is not as though such a shallow understanding of so many familiar ideals is going to contribute anything. I have read his posts, I have understood them, and that is why I choose not to waste my time.

A discussion is only possible if there is a desire for understanding. He has none, and thus I see no point in trying to elaborate upon my statements to him. It would be a wasted effort, and a frustrating one from what I have gathered. It is fine that he disagrees, but I want to understand why he disagrees, and I cannot achieve that if he won't commit to any standpoint more developed than 'you are wrong and I will take whatever position I need to without understanding the ramifications in order to show that.'
It is complicated by this field apparently being new to a lot of users here, and while that is fine, it also makes it harder to discuss if people are not willing to admit something is new to them. He is a perfect example of that also: I mentioned he was not an expert in this topic, and he called that an insult.

I don't want to be agreed with, I want to be challenged. I want to have my point of view questioned, holes exposed, flaws revealed, perhaps even my worldview shattered. I would relish that. Have you ever experienced that? It is how I ended up where I am today. It is a wonderful experience.
That is not something that is going to happen if I talk to someone with no understanding of it, who refuses to admit that they have no understanding. That is not discussion or a debate, that is futility.

I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.

I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.

That doesn't answer the question. If he only annoys the people here and no one wants to discuss with him, why is he here? It seems a net negative.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 27, 2020, 07:24:56 AM

I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.

That doesn't answer the question. If he only annoys the people here and no one wants to discuss with him, why is he here? It seems a net negative.

We don't ban people when they don't break the rules. We don't even permanently ban people when they do break the rules.

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 27, 2020, 07:28:37 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 27, 2020, 07:24:56 AM

I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.

That doesn't answer the question. If he only annoys the people here and no one wants to discuss with him, why is he here? It seems a net negative.

We don't ban people when they don't break the rules. We don't even permanently ban people when they do break the rules.

If being a net negative doesn't break the rules, then what are the rules for?

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 06:30:44 AM

If you want to have a discussion but be protected from anyone who disagrees with you, there is no such place anywhere in the world. If you put an idea out there, be prepared for people to both agree with it if they do, and disagree with it if they think it's wrong.

I've had long discussions here with more than one person who told me 1+1=2 is wrong. They were very sincere and adamant and enthusiastic about their opinion, but should I just shrug and agree with them because they were so sure they were right? There is no immunity to being told you are wrong if you want to have a discussion.

If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.

I too have had lengthy discussions with people who disagreed with me. Don't think I have not. In those situations, I learn from the arguments they make, as they learn from mine. That is what I assumed the purpose of these discussions is: they are a way to better your own understanding by seeing what objections others raise.
I don't see the point in having discussions for the purpose of arguing. That sounds draining and, ultimately, futile. I prefer to talk with someone who is offering something new, because they are making an interesting case.

If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach.

I've read his position, and his position is clearly laid out multiple times. You are saying X can not exist on it's own, so Y must exist.  He is saying that makes no sense, because what proves Y? Z?  And what proves Z?  If you argue evidence can't stand on it's own and needs something behind it, then what's behind that? It's just pushing the problem down the road.

You not being able to force JackBlack or myself to agree with you doesn't make us trolls or stupid. We see your points, we understand them. We just think they are wrong.

Plenty of new things have been brought up in these discussions, if you can't see them, that's not the forums fault.

You not being able to force JackBlack or myself to agree with you doesn't make us trolls or stupid. We see your points, we understand them. We just think they are wrong.

No, you are here to troll.

"If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach. If asked to consider the foundation of the evidential approach, he doesn't offer anything. In a previous thread he offered the radical skeptic position as a counter, but here he decries it. He attempted to change the topic in another thread as opposed to discussing the one at hand, and in another he changed the meaning of an argument to gain victory, not understanding. He has said explicitly that he will not accept the possibility that I could answer any of his questions, he just wants me to admit I am wrong.
He has no position of his own. He is a devil's advocate, one who argues against, but has nothing to argue for. He simply wants to take the position of most trouble. What am I to learn about the position of someone who will not commit? And it is not as though such a shallow understanding of so many familiar ideals is going to contribute anything. I have read his posts, I have understood them, and that is why I choose not to waste my time."

I've read his position, and his position is clearly laid out multiple times. You are saying X can not exist on it's own, so Y must exist.  He is saying that makes no sense, because what proves Y? Z?  And what proves Z?  If you argue evidence can't stand on it's own and needs something behind it, then what's behind that? It's just pushing the problem down the road.

You not being able to force JackBlack or myself to agree with you doesn't make us trolls or stupid. We see your points, we understand them. We just think they are wrong.

Plenty of new things have been brought up in these discussions, if you can't see them, that's not the forums fault.

The problem is that his position isn't. He's laid out that he objects to mine, which I accept, but he isn't offering anything to replace it with. What little he does mention he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the implications of. I don't care if you disagree with me, I care when that disagreement is rooted in a desire to prove me wrong, not to see if I am wrong. I care when the goal is victory, not understanding. He cannot lay out his position because he has none, he defines himself by a negative.

The position you bring up there is not new, as you seem to imply. It was one of the first things I addressed. This problem you mention is unique to evidential and evidential-type systems. Only evidential systems require Y to prove X. His problem is rooted in the presupposition that anything shown by non-evidential means is unjustified, but he is unwilling to examine or acknowledge that presupposition. If it is false, he has no case, and if it is true then he is steadfastedly refusing to give a basis for it.

His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach,

What a monster!

The position you bring up there is not new, as you seem to imply. It was one of the first things I addressed. This problem you mention is unique to evidential and evidential-type systems. Only evidential systems require Y to prove X. His problem is rooted in the presupposition that anything shown by non-evidential means is unjustified, but he is unwilling to examine or acknowledge that presupposition. If it is false, he has no case, and if it is true then he is steadfastedly refusing to give a basis for it.

No, he, and I disagree with you on this too. You are claiming that this is unique to evidential-type systems, and your alternate solution (which you still have not elaborated on) is not subject to this. You are making many claims, and I happen to disagree with most of them.

Just because you disagree with why we disagree doesn't make our points invalid. You are convinced you are right, Jack is convinced he's right, I'm convinced I am right. Yet you are claiming that everyone else is being stubborn, and you are the only reasonable one.

What do they bring to the site that is worth this?

You wonder why JackBlack and I are allowed on the forum? I can't speak for the mods, but why is he or I any worse than Wise or Sandokhan or a half dozen others? Should they be kicked out along with us, if not, why?

Just who would you allow to stay if you could remove people who displease you?

your alternate solution (which you still have not elaborated on)

Excuse me? The majority of my opening posts was elaborating on it. I do not understand why this is something you keep repeating. If you genuinely believe this, you have provided a good example of the difference between disagreement and a waste of time.
You are free to disagree with it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist. How does that aid anyone's understanding, yours or mine? If I am wrong, you won't show it. If you are, you won't face it.

You wonder why JackBlack and I are allowed on the forum? I can't speak for the mods, but why is he or I any worse than Wise or Sandokhan or a half dozen others? Should they be kicked out along with us, if not, why?

Just who would you allow to stay if you could remove people who displease you?

I have very little idea of who either of those people are. I have seen a little of a lengthy informative thread filled by Sandokhan, that I plan to return to, and this thread, but little else. The impression I have of him is someone that has a steadfast viewpoint that he stands by. Perhaps he has become belligerent in other threads, I cannot comment, but he at least is achieving something.
I do not know much about Wise at all. I have never engaged with the user, from what I have gathered from signatures he has been absent ever since I arrived, but from what I have seen in old threads and newer, he is treated like some kind of performing animal by the other users here. He is clearly speaking in a second language, and I want to hope that is not the reason for the mockery he receives simply for posting, but I have seen him post thought-provoking statements that people chose to argue against with no effort made towards understanding.

I have no doubt there are threads I have not seen, and perhaps their behavior is worse in those, but from what I have seen they do not begin discussions with the intent to waste time. They have values, they have standpoints. Jackblack has none. A discussion with them, with any user, even one who is angry and insulting, will be able to achieve something if that user actually understands even their own point of view.

Why do you act as though my objection is just that he disagrees? This makes as little sense as your claim I have not elaborated on my alternative.
My objection is that he contributes nothing. He has no point of view to defend, he just has everyone else's to attack, and he does not even appear to understand the consequences of what he is arguing for. I have no issue with him disagreeing, but it appears that many users, not just myself, have taken issue with him. Instead the moderation team focuses their efforts on unimportant matters as opposed to something that seems to have been a significant problem for much longer.

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 08:52:01 AM

your alternate solution (which you still have not elaborated on)

Excuse me? The majority of my opening posts was elaborating on it. I do not understand why this is something you keep repeating. If you genuinely believe this, you have provided a good example of the difference between disagreement and a waste of time.
You are free to disagree with it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist. How does that aid anyone's understanding, yours or mine? If I am wrong, you won't show it. If you are, you won't face it.

I can't show you're wrong because you won't actually explain what this non-evidence method of yours IS.  You keep saying it exists.  You keep saying you have explained it, but your only 'explanation' is you trying to show that evidence needs something else, ergo your something else exists. 

But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone.  Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 08:52:01 AM

You wonder why JackBlack and I are allowed on the forum? I can't speak for the mods, but why is he or I any worse than Wise or Sandokhan or a half dozen others? Should they be kicked out along with us, if not, why?

Just who would you allow to stay if you could remove people who displease you?

I have very little idea of who either of those people are. I have seen a little of a lengthy informative thread filled by Sandokhan, that I plan to return to, and this thread, but little else. The impression I have of him is someone that has a steadfast viewpoint that he stands by. Perhaps he has become belligerent in other threads, I cannot comment, but he at least is achieving something.

What exactly has he achieved in your view? Claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine? That all of history is wrong? Proved that the universe has a radius of 31km? You should read more, but if you think his posts are informative, well, interesting. They are full of quotes, I suppose those can be informative. I mean, I never heard of occult-chemistry and being given knowledge of subatomic physics by ESP before him, so yes, he has informed me of a lot of new concepts.

I do not know much about Wise at all. I have never engaged with the user, from what I have gathered from signatures he has been absent ever since I arrived, but from what I have seen in old threads and newer, he is treated like some kind of performing animal by the other users here. He is clearly speaking in a second language, and I want to hope that is not the reason for the mockery he receives simply for posting, but I have seen him post thought-provoking statements that people chose to argue against with no effort made towards understanding.

Thought provoking?  I suppose. Not sure why you are bringing up his spelling. But here are some thoughts of his.

1. You can't build a 4-wheeled electric vehicle that won't crash immediately due to the fact that it's impossible to steer 4 wheels at the same time.

2. Putting an electric motor in a wheel is impossible.

3. Qantas airlines are literally run by the devil and routinely murder people and dump their bodies overboard if they choose a fake flight.

4. I am an evil NASA programmed robot assassin.

And many, many many others. If you Jack is rude to you, look up some of the insults and accusations they throw around on a regular basis. Then explain why he deserves to be eliminated from the forums, and they do not.

As I said before, there are other forums. You, Sandokhan and Wise could all go there and be free to say whatever you wanted. Maybe the

Why do you act as though my objection is just that he disagrees? This makes as little sense as your claim I have not elaborated on my alternative.
My objection is that he contributes nothing. He has no point of view to defend, he just has everyone else's to attack, and he does not even appear to understand the consequences of what he is arguing for. I have no issue with him disagreeing, but it appears that many users, not just myself, have taken issue with him.

He's a non-believer on a Flat Earth forum, yeah he has a lot of haters.

Again, you are taking your opinion for objective truth. It's your opinion he is contributing nothing, and that's fine. But when you claim it as an absolute fact, that's just not how it works.

This forum (and most) would be an empty, desolate wasteland if you got rid of everyone that made someone else upset.

I ask the very same question: "What do they bring to the site that is worth this?

Fact checking the FE'ers?

As I said before, there are other forums. You, Sandokhan and Wise could all go there and be free to say whatever you wanted. Maybe the

You are a n00b who only came here to cry about getting banned from the other forum. You don't get to run our forum members off.

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 10:24:58 AM

As I said before, there are other forums. You, Sandokhan and Wise could all go there and be free to say whatever you wanted. Maybe the

You are a n00b who only came here to cry about getting banned from the other forum. You don't get to run our forum members off.

True, that is what got me posting here the first time.  It was a good cry too, very cathartic. 

It's related though, I was told over there to find another forum that better suited me, so figured I'd pass along that advice to someone else who clearly is unhappy.

Being a member of BOTH forums really is the best of both worlds.

But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone.  Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.

Have you read this thread, or did you only join in at the later posts? As I said, I outlined all of this in great detail in the opening posts. I do not see why you are claiming otherwise. You are free to disagree with the contents, but it is there. What is the purpose behind claiming it is not?
I said this in the previous post. Why did you not acknowledge it? How is a discussion meant to take place if you ignore anything that is said?

And many, many many others. If you Jack is rude to you, look up some of the insults and accusations they throw around on a regular basis. Then explain why he deserves to be eliminated from the forums, and they do not.

Rudeness was not my objection. I understand that, in poorly managed discussions, tempers can get frayed. I am more likely to blame the moderation team than the users for allowing an environment to devolve to that level.
As I said, my experience with them is limited. As I also said, they have stances. You are free to disagree with them, but they stand for something. They have a motive in being here, as opposed to existing just to argue.

Discussion is only achieved by understanding. You take the time to listen to what the other person has to say, you see why it works from their perspective, and then you see why that perspective chafes with yours. You examine those differences, and you see their justifications. You then take those justifications, and see if they chafe with your point of view for any non-circular reasons, or if they are in line. You learn and grow.
If someone's only purpose is in criticism, then they are not offering a point of view to compare with. They can, in theory, expose flaws, but more likely they expose misunderstandings. For someone whose goal is just criticism, they are not going to do what it takes to fully understand a point of view. This is not my first discussion.

What I want to do is learn something new and expand my worldview. My problem is that he, and you so far, are not offering anything new. You are criticising something you apparently have not even read, going by your claims about it. The arguments you offer against what little you do mention are old, and ones that I bring up in that very breakdown because I have heard them before. You are not expanding my understanding of anything, and neither is he, and he has admitted he actively refuses to learn anything because he just assumes I'm wrong.
So what is the point? What is gained?
Either someone is willing to learn, or capable of providing new information. Both is ideal. Without either however, especially without the former, any discussion is pointless and they would not be welcome in any other site I have been on.

Sandokhan and Wise, whether you agree you disagree with them, offer you something new. You are free to disbelieve. I cannot say yet if I believe or disbelieve their claims without further context, but if I disbelieve, I still learn something about why they believe that. The method of understanding the world is if anything more important than the facts themselves: with the method, you can determine more.
Someone could claim the sky was green, and I would ask them why they believed that. Even if their methodology was flawed, I would learn about an alternative approach, and be able to make my own judgement. It might even add to my own understanding as I would have further flaws to look out for. I could tell you a lot about certain users by what they have revealed about how they think.

Thanks for this post; looking forward to properly digging into it because at first glance I think we agree on a lot, and you raise some points I've raised over and over again.

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 10:24:58 AM

But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone.  Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.

Have you read this thread, or did you only join in at the later posts? As I said, I outlined all of this in great detail in the opening posts. I do not see why you are claiming otherwise. You are free to disagree with the contents, but it is there. What is the purpose behind claiming it is not?
I said this in the previous post. Why did you not acknowledge it? How is a discussion meant to take place if you ignore anything that is said?

Again, you are refusing to see that other people can disagree with you.

You claim you have explained everything, I claim that no you have not.

What you said, you don't see why I claim otherwise... do you not understand that I am claiming otherwise because THAT IS WHAT I THINK?

You seem to think that the only possible reason I won't agree with you is because I just want to argue or am a troll or want to disrupt. Can you not imagine that I actually do NOT see where you explain your alternate non-evidence method?  I've said many times, all I see in your description is your reasoning why evidence is incomplete and needs something else.  I both disagree with the premise, and also do not agree that this explains WHAT this other non-evidence system is.  You only say what it's not, it's non-evidential, which really says nothing.

As I said, my experience with them is limited. As I also said, they have stances. You are free to disagree with them, but they stand for something. They have a motive in being here, as opposed to existing just to argue.

Why do you not extend the same consideration to people who debate you? You don't think I stand for anything? The only difference between the people you see as having stances and stands, and people you see as just wanting to argue, is one group disagrees with you.

You don't know me, or JackBlack. You have no idea what motivates either of us.

Sandokhan and Wise, whether you agree you disagree with them, offer you something new. You are free to disbelieve. I cannot say yet if I believe or disbelieve their claims without further context, but if I disbelieve, I still learn something about why they believe that. The method of understanding the world is if anything more important than the facts themselves: with the method, you can determine more.
Someone could claim the sky was green, and I would ask them why they believed that. Even if their methodology was flawed, I would learn about an alternative approach, and be able to make my own judgement. It might even add to my own understanding as I would have further flaws to look out for. I could tell you a lot about certain users by what they have revealed about how they think.

Well if you are not sure if Qantas airlines is actually run by the Devil and murdering dozens of people a day and dumping them in the ocean without further context, then that certainly says a lot about how you think.  Seriously, if you won an all expenses paid vacation to Australia, would you turn it down because some guy on the internet said you're going to be murdered if you get on that plane? If a relative of yours told you they were going to fly Qantas, would to rip up their ticket and lock them in their bedroom save their life?

I highly doubt it, because you and I both know that Qantas isn't murdering thousands of people a year that buy tickets and show up for fake flights.

I'm not sure what I learned reading THAT discussion, other than people can come up with some pretty crazy conspiracy theories, and others can believe they are true. But sure, I learned something. Doesn't mean I'm not going to call it a made up conspiracy theory though.  And not because I just like to argue, but because It's what I believe.

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 27, 2020, 12:36:21 PM

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 10:24:58 AM

But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone.  Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.

Have you read this thread, or did you only join in at the later posts? As I said, I outlined all of this in great detail in the opening posts. I do not see why you are claiming otherwise. You are free to disagree with the contents, but it is there. What is the purpose behind claiming it is not?
I said this in the previous post. Why did you not acknowledge it? How is a discussion meant to take place if you ignore anything that is said?

Again, you are refusing to see that other people can disagree with you.

You claim you have explained everything, I claim that no you have not.

What you said, you don't see why I claim otherwise... do you not understand that I am claiming otherwise because THAT IS WHAT I THINK?

You seem to think that the only possible reason I won't agree with you is because I just want to argue or am a troll or want to disrupt. Can you not imagine that I actually do NOT see where you explain your alternate non-evidence method?  I've said many times, all I see in your description is your reasoning why evidence is incomplete and needs something else.  I both disagree with the premise, and also do not agree that this explains WHAT this other non-evidence system is.  You only say what it's not, it's non-evidential, which really says nothing.

You are free to disagree that it functions, but the fact I gave it is not a matter of opinion. The first post I make breaks down why I don't believe evidence is enough and lays the groundwork for what would need to be appended, the second post goes into more detail as to what the replacement is and specifically gives details in far more depth than 'it's non-evidential,' and demonstrates it in practice, and the third post ties it to the flat earth.
This is not a matter of opinion. You are free to believe it is wrong, and I would enjoy having that discussion assuming you could take part in it, but claiming I did not give the alternative has as much validity as claiming my post is in German. That is not a claim about viewpoint, that is a claim about facts. You can say it, and you would be wrong.

Why do you not extend the same consideration to people who debate you? You don't think I stand for anything? The only difference between the people you see as having stances and stands, and people you see as just wanting to argue, is one group disagrees with you.

You don't know me, or JackBlack. You have no idea what motivates either of us.

People show a lot in how they act. You, I am not sure about yet, true, you have expressed contradictory aspects, but Jackblack has made many things clear. So has Space Cowgirl, for that matter. When people speak, they express their values.
I do not care that he disagrees. I care about what he says. He has said he does not ask questions to get an answer, but to make me admit I am wrong. He has said the radical skeptic response counters me, and yet mocks that ideology. Those tell me his concern is not understanding or knowledge, it is being contrarian, and the uninformed nature of his posts tells me he is not a contrarian it would be beneficial to talk with. If multiple other users, those he has spoken with, agree, I feel confident in saying he adds nothing of value.

Why do you have this idea that people do not want to speak with those that disagree with them? In my experience, there is nothing more challenging and invigorating than a good discussion with someone who believes radically different things. If the standard on this site has made you think that it should end with anger and hatred, that is perhaps the most damning thing you could say, and the best illustration of what needs to change.

I'm not sure what I learned reading THAT discussion, other than people can come up with some pretty crazy conspiracy theories, and others can believe they are true. But sure, I learned something. Doesn't mean I'm not going to call it a made up conspiracy theory though.  And not because I just like to argue, but because It's what I believe.

You don't have to believe everything you read (I have said otherwise several times now, what was the purpose in implying I expected you to agree?), but you might find it beneficial to understand someone's motive in believing it.