The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: mizar on August 24, 2010, 10:10:43 AM
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
Theistic fanatics Know the truth, they just can't handle the truth even when it is shown to them. They will make no such effort to even validate it, or even self scrutinize. However, there are like 2 or 3 die hard FE'rs here and they probably are only here for the LULZ as well. It's more of an internet circular gun fight. So I wouldn't worry too much ;)
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
I agree, there is no evidence that would disprove to most brainwashed theistic round earthers the globularist theories that are indoctrinated into our youth.
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
I agree, there is no evidence that would disprove to most brainwashed theistic round earthers the globularist theories that are indoctrinated into our youth.
You're quite right, but you don't go far enough. There is no evidence contrary to RET that would cause more than a moment's hesitation to any reasonable person, regardless of philosophy or religion. FET presents no evidence worthy of consideration. Reference, for example, the FEW's determination of the height of the Sun.
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
I agree, there is no evidence that would disprove to most brainwashed theistic round earthers the globularist theories that are indoctrinated into our youth.
Fail, RE has data and evidence to support. FE has nothing other than circular pissing contests. Please try again when you can actually support your position. Show the evidence, data, and work or shut your trap I say.
Ahh you can't do that because FE is faith based pseudoscience ;)
-
FE has nothing other than circular pissing contests.
How do you know what I do at the weekend?
-
FE has nothing other than circular pissing contests.
How do you know what I do at the weekend?
You should try not to advertise it ;)
-
Ahh you can't do that because FE is faith based pseudoscience ;)
Where did you get that idea?
-
Ahh you can't do that because FE is faith based pseudoscience ;)
Where did you get that idea?
No data to back up your scientific assertions = pseudoscience
Arguing from a position of phantom data does not grant you credibility, or anything other than tossing scientific terminology into a tossed salad wrapped within an ideological construct. Please try again.
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
I agree, there is no evidence that would disprove to most brainwashed theistic round earthers the globularist theories that are indoctrinated into our youth.
Oh it's very easy for me.
Give me a picture that shows the entire lit surface of the Flat Earth taken from a camera that went into space. It really shouldn't be hard since amateurs can send pictures up all the time. They should be able to see the entire lit area... right?
-
Ahh you can't do that because FE is faith based pseudoscience ;)
Where did you get that idea?
No data to back up your scientific assertions = pseudoscience
Arguing from a position of phantom data does not grant you credibility, or anything other than tossing scientific terminology into a tossed salad wrapped within an ideological construct. Please try again.
There is data, you RE'rs just conveniently explain it way as pseudoscience. Talk about lack of falsifiableity...
-
Ahh you can't do that because FE is faith based pseudoscience ;)
Where did you get that idea?
No data to back up your scientific assertions = pseudoscience
Arguing from a position of phantom data does not grant you credibility, or anything other than tossing scientific terminology into a tossed salad wrapped within an ideological construct. Please try again.
There is data, you RE'rs just conveniently explain it way as pseudoscience. Talk about lack of falsifiableity...
Someone might actually believe your claim--if you backed it up with evidence. Nice word-creating, by the way.
-
Ahh you can't do that because FE is faith based pseudoscience ;)
Where did you get that idea?
No data to back up your scientific assertions = pseudoscience
Arguing from a position of phantom data does not grant you credibility, or anything other than tossing scientific terminology into a tossed salad wrapped within an ideological construct. Please try again.
There is data, you RE'rs just conveniently explain it way as pseudoscience. Talk about lack of falsifiableity...
Cough it up and stop making excuses for yourself.
-
Cough it up and stop making excuses for yourself.
We have, many a time...
Nice word-creating, by the way.
Can't claim I invented it, falsifiability is an RE term.
-
Cough it up and stop making excuses for yourself.
We have, many a time...
Nice word-creating, by the way.
Can't claim I invented it, falsifiability is an RE term.
Your Fallibility is your inability to substantiate your case, provide data, real world observation to which can be verified, or even remotely attempt to logically falsify RE. At this time, I can only conclude you are unable to comply. Thus this thread has come to a close, and so has your argument.
-
Cough it up and stop making excuses for yourself.
We have, many a time...
Nice word-creating, by the way.
Can't claim I invented it, falsifiability is an RE term.
Your Fallibility is your inability to substantiate your case, provide data, real world observation to which can be verified, or even remotely attempt to logically falsify RE. At this time, I can only conclude you are unable to comply. Thus this thread has come to a close, and so has your argument.
No it hasn't.
-
Cough it up and stop making excuses for yourself.
We have, many a time...
Nice word-creating, by the way.
Can't claim I invented it, falsifiability is an RE term.
Your Fallibility is your inability to substantiate your case, provide data, real world observation to which can be verified, or even remotely attempt to logically falsify RE. At this time, I can only conclude you are unable to comply. Thus this thread has come to a close, and so has your argument.
No it hasn't.
Good, because your rationalilty in the previous posts have been correct and superior to the counter arguments.
-
Cough it up and stop making excuses for yourself.
We have, many a time...
Nice word-creating, by the way.
Can't claim I invented it, falsifiability is an RE term.
Your Fallibility is your inability to substantiate your case, provide data, real world observation to which can be verified, or even remotely attempt to logically falsify RE. At this time, I can only conclude you are unable to comply. Thus this thread has come to a close, and so has your argument.
No it hasn't.
Then please to get off your tuff and start complying. 8)
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
You are incorrect. I'd estimate 3-4 users who are true believers.
-
Nice word-creating, by the way.
Can't claim I invented it, falsifiability is an RE term.
Oh, I think you're confused in two ways, though dishonest might apply.
There is data, you RE'rs just conveniently explain it way as pseudoscience. Talk about lack of falsifiableity...
Oh, and it comes from all of Science, not just RET. Then again perhaps you're just admitting that FET isn't science.
-
I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that Zeteticism is science.
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
I lol'd when i read both their post counts
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
I lol'd when i read both their post counts
whatre you talking about?
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
I would say most are pretending ;) It's like a game of D&D here lol.
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
I lol'd when i read both their post counts
whatre you talking about?
3804 posts vs. 241 posts.
I think Fortuna knows the people here better than you :P
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
And many of them are not. However, you are right; some of us are.
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
And many of them are not. However, you are right; some of us are.
You really should put in new labels like "Devil's Advocate" and "Pretender".
-
The problem with this theory is that it can't have contradictory evidence.
It's not that there isn't contradictory evidence to this theory, it's just that the bottom line is that there is no possible evidence that could ever exist that WOULD disprove this theory, for anyone who believes it. For the die hards, if they were personally flown into space and looked at a round earth outside their space-shuttle window, they would still be able to come up with a reason that the earth was flat. Maybe the window was secretly a tv, or the round earth was a picture taped up over the outside, or they were dreaming.
I agree, there is no evidence that would disprove to most brainwashed theistic round earthers the globularist theories that are indoctrinated into our youth.
Good thing there is no evidence then too.
-
I'm fairly confident that there isn't a single user who actually thinks the Earth is flat. But it's a fun place to chat about ridiculous stuff and make memes etc...
I dont believe u've read too much here then. many people here identify themselves as flat earthers.
And many of them are not. However, you are right; some of us are.
You really should put in new labels like "Devil's Advocate" and "Pretender".
I agree, but with the true believer status being more regulated it shouldn't be needed. Also, others disagree with me and I can see why they would.
-
I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that Zeteticism is science.
What exactly is wrong with the Zetetic method?
All I said is that it isn't the same thing as the scientific method.
-
I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that Zeteticism is science.
What exactly is wrong with the Zetetic method?
All I said is that it isn't the same thing as the scientific method.
No, you said that it was not science. The so-called "scientific method" is not requisite.
Please support your claim. The textbooks that I used always said that Science was based on the Scientific Method. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
-
I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that Zeteticism is science.
What exactly is wrong with the Zetetic method?
This. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42826.msg1062771#msg1062771)
-
I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that Zeteticism is science.
What exactly is wrong with the Zetetic method?
In simple words, the Zetetic method relies on the first hand experience of the observer rather than the predictive power of the model which tries to explain the studied phenomena.
Just as an example, in perfectly Zetetic fashion, you look at the sea from your window and see it flat. Then, in perfect Zetetic fashion, you see the Sun moving towards the horizon during dawn and falling under the horizon without stopping, changing course, or hinting that you are really seeing an illusion.
Everything until this point clearly (in a Zetetic fashion) shows that the Earth is flat and the Sun actually falls under Earth. But then, it is now evident that when you see the Sun under the Earth it is clearly seen close to the zenith in another location on Earth.
Which of the three Zetetic observations is wrong? All of the three observations is totally Zetetic, and therefore is correct. But at least one of them is wrong, so Zeteticism is internally paradoxical.
-
In simple words, the Zetetic method relies on the first hand experience of the observer rather than the predictive power of the model which tries to explain the studied phenomena.
Just as an example, in perfectly Zetetic fashion, you look at the sea from your window and see it flat. Then, in perfect Zetetic fashion, you see the Sun moving towards the horizon during dawn and falling under the horizon without stopping, changing course, or hinting that you are really seeing an illusion.
Everything until this point clearly (in a Zetetic fashion) shows that the Earth is flat and the Sun actually falls under Earth. But then, it is now evident that when you see the Sun under the Earth it is clearly seen close to the zenith in another location on Earth.
Which of the three Zetetic observations is wrong? All of the three observations is totally Zetetic, and therefore is correct. But at least one of them is wrong, so Zeteticism is internally paradoxical.
That seems like an entire thought process that was intentional desgned to defeat itself and produce conclusions and observations that can't be counted on for anything. What's the point of even using this system?
-
What's the point of even using this system?
To (erroneously) show that the earth is flat.
-
In simple words, the Zetetic method relies on the first hand experience of the observer rather than the predictive power of the model which tries to explain the studied phenomena.
Just as an example, in perfectly Zetetic fashion, you look at the sea from your window and see it flat. Then, in perfect Zetetic fashion, you see the Sun moving towards the horizon during dawn and falling under the horizon without stopping, changing course, or hinting that you are really seeing an illusion.
Everything until this point clearly (in a Zetetic fashion) shows that the Earth is flat and the Sun actually falls under Earth. But then, it is now evident that when you see the Sun under the Earth it is clearly seen close to the zenith in another location on Earth.
Which of the three Zetetic observations is wrong? All of the three observations is totally Zetetic, and therefore is correct. But at least one of them is wrong, so Zeteticism is internally paradoxical.
That seems like an entire thought process that was intentional desgned to defeat itself and produce conclusions and observations that can't be counted on for anything. What's the point of even using this system?
That is the whole idea. Zetetic meditation implies that inside you there are all the answers. That if you really think Earth is flat or atoms do not exist, or Relativity is a conspiracy, and find a spec of evidence for your preconceived idea, then you have Allmighty Truth grabbed with both hands.
But the inner workings of your mind (and mine) do not hold any inherent truths. Your undeniable truths are not the same as mine, and we cannot both be right. You cannot say your meditation is better than mine, or that the experiments you decide to do give answers while mine do not.
That is why the prediction of the results of experiments and observations is at the very center of the Scientific Method.