Why is North America so huge?Because it is?
It looks shopped.
It looks shopped.The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it was, "It doesn't look real."
It looks shopped.The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it was, "It doesn't look real."
It looks shopped.
Can you shop that?
Please provide your version.It looks shopped.The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it was, "It doesn't look real."
This is a photo that NASA astronauts took in the 1970's:
(http://i.imgur.com/IvQhxhc.jpg)
Explain that away...
This is a photo that NASA astronauts took in the 1970's:A painting by Barbara Rohrer maybe?
(http://i.imgur.com/IvQhxhc.jpg)
Explain that away...
Explain that away...
Yes, my post was sarcastic. Thanks for noticing.Explain that away...
Please look up the definition of sarcasm. Thanks.
It looks shopped.
Can you shop that?
Easily.
It looks shopped.
Can you shop that?
Easily.
Great, you mind doing a tutorial then?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Cw2WCK9IU1M/TzlVYAOG3fI/AAAAAAAAAys/aLO8oAFt2rQ/s1600/spain.jpg)Doesn't look like an actual thing, either.
Nice pic of Spain seen from the ISS. Doesn't look flat to me.
It looks shopped.
Can you shop that?
Easily.
Great, you mind doing a tutorial then?
Do you have Photoshop? I can make a tutorial if you really need it. Otherwise, that would be a huge waste of my time
(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)
(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)
:l that's not a photograph- I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.
http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg (http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)
that's not a photograph - I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.
Sadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.
http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg (http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)
that's not a photograph - I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.QuoteSadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.
As you seem to be claiming that this photo-mosaic is bogus, can you tell us precisely what leads you to this conclusion? Or are you just guessing?
I await your empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.This is a fallacy of logic. One cannot "prove" a negative. One can only disprove an alleged positive. For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.
You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.Nope. The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers". Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers". We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.
Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.This is a fallacy of logic. One cannot "prove" a negative. One can only disprove an alleged positive. For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.QuoteYou believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.Nope. The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers". Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers". We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.
Belief can be defined as faith, hope, supposition, or even just personal opinion. But no sign of any empirical evidence.
One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless. Like your belief that the earth is flat.
Sorry.
Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.This is a fallacy of logic. One cannot "prove" a negative. One can only disprove an alleged positive. For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.QuoteYou believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.Nope. The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers". Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers". We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.
Belief can be defined as faith, hope, supposition, or even just personal opinion. But no sign of any empirical evidence.
One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless. Like your belief that the earth is flat.
Sorry.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.This is a fallacy of logic. One cannot "prove" a negative. One can only disprove an alleged positive. For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.QuoteYou believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.Nope. The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers". Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers". We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.
Belief can be defined as faith, hope, supposition, or even just personal opinion. But no sign of any empirical evidence.
One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless. Like your belief that the earth is flat.
Sorry.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.This is a fallacy of logic. One cannot "prove" a negative. One can only disprove an alleged positive. For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.QuoteYou believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.Nope. The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers". Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers". We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.
Belief can be defined as faith, hope, supposition, or even just personal opinion. But no sign of any empirical evidence.
One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless. Like your belief that the earth is flat.
Sorry.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
A setting sun is impossible on a flat earth.
Why is North America so huge?perspective
Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.This is a fallacy of logic. One cannot "prove" a negative. One can only disprove an alleged positive. For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.QuoteYou believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.Nope. The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers". Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers". We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.
Belief can be defined as faith, hope, supposition, or even just personal opinion. But no sign of any empirical evidence.
One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless. Like your belief that the earth is flat.
Sorry.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
This the definition part you conveniently left out:Quote from: WikipediaEmpirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:
Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
This the definition part you conveniently left out:Quote from: WikipediaEmpirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:
Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.
I conveniently left nothing out. I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).
The other "evidences" put forward by Shmeggley are not verifiable empirically and are thus invalid.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
This the definition part you conveniently left out:Quote from: WikipediaEmpirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:
Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.
I conveniently left nothing out. I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).
The other "evidences" put forward by Shmeggley are not verifiable empirically and are thus invalid.
I know what you were trying to do legion, you're trying to redefine "empirical evidence" as evidence gained only through one's own senses. But you don't get to do that. I can redefine "chocolate bar" as "gold bar", but I'm not going to get rich that way. Nor do you advance your argument by making up your own definitions for words. Unless you can give some reason why "empirical" must be redefined as only through one's own senses (which is a useless definition by the way, since there can never be a shared body of knowledge gained through empirical evidence, because nobody will be able to accept any evidence they didn't discover themselves under this definition), besides as a cheap tactic just to win an argument, then I think you're done.
Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)):
The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
This the definition part you conveniently left out:Quote from: WikipediaEmpirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:
Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.
I conveniently left nothing out. I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).
The other "evidences" put forward by Shmeggley are not verifiable empirically and are thus invalid.
I know what you were trying to do legion, you're trying to redefine "empirical evidence" as evidence gained only through one's own senses. But you don't get to do that. I can redefine "chocolate bar" as "gold bar", but I'm not going to get rich that way. Nor do you advance your argument by making up your own definitions for words. Unless you can give some reason why "empirical" must be redefined as only through one's own senses (which is a useless definition by the way, since there can never be a shared body of knowledge gained through empirical evidence, because nobody will be able to accept any evidence they didn't discover themselves under this definition), besides as a cheap tactic just to win an argument, then I think you're done.
Tut, tut Shmeggly. It is you who is attempting to redefine "empirical". Reread the definition I posted.
Yes, some people may accept second hand reports as evidence, but, I do not. Nor should any other rational person.
Edit: Shmeggly, how do you think experiments are repeated? Is that not the basis of science? Being able to duplicate an experiement and get the same results? Empirically. But, nowadays that option has been taken away with the ridiculous particle accelerators and space adventures that the priesthood use to "prove" their theories. Think about it (although you won't).
Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.Other than perhaps as a word that a few thousand people of heard of, I'd argue it doesn't even exist. There are no schools of Zeteticism, nobody uses it and I can't even find a clear definition.
Yeah, demanding first hand experience is Zeteticism, not empiricism.
If you could only get truth through Zeteticism, civilisation would not exist.
Civilisation does exist.
Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.
You realize everyone of those definitions leaves the door open to secondary or indirect observation don't you? You actually proves Shmwggley's point. Well done!
Yeah, demanding first hand experience is Zeteticism, not empiricism.
If you could only get truth through Zeteticism, civilisation would not exist.
Civilisation does exist.
Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empirical: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empirical:)
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical:)
originating in or based on observation or experience
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical)
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical)
derived from or guided by experience or experiment
Yeah, demanding first hand experience is Zeteticism, not empiricism.
If you could only get truth through Zeteticism, civilisation would not exist.
Civilisation does exist.
Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empirical: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empirical:)
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
This definition makes a distinction between using experience and observation versus abstraction. It does not say anything about primacy of the senses.Quotehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical:)
originating in or based on observation or experience
A secondary or indirect observation does originate in observation or experience.Quotehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical)
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
Again secondary or indirect observations do rely on or are derived from observation or experiment.Quotehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical)
derived from or guided by experience or experiment
More of the same really.
You don't get to specifically narrow a general definition that can be applied broadly.
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
You are making no sense. Are you high on hallucinogens? That would explain your redefinition of empirical evidence.
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
You are making no sense. Are you high on hallucinogens? That would explain your redefinition of empirical evidence.
As Hominem. I see you are done then. Thanks for playing and come back when you think you can play nice.
You implied the only criteria I have to believe a secondary report is its mere existence, but that is absurd. Why wouldn't I scrutinize it?
Empiricism is based on evidence, there's no requirement to personally observe everything with your own eyes. Wrong. That's "Zeteticism".
Science moves forward by peer review it used to be repeatable experiments, now they just read each others papers?!, we don't just take anyone's word for anything they can imagine. On the contrary, their methods must be repeatable by independent parties. Define independent and define repeatable. As lay people, that relationship between one experimenter and his peers reviewing his logic, repeating his experiments and scrutinising his conclusions is what allows us to take their empirical findings seriously. So, you take it all on trust. Righto.
All of civilisation is built on the work of the people who came before, if you think things only "count" when you do them yourself from first principles, then leave your possessions where they are, head out into the wild, crack yourself on the head with a rock until you forget everything you ever learnt from anyone and make your own start where you can be sure of everything personally. Let us know how it goes. You have gone off on a tangent. I dispute your redefinition of "empircial". Civilization is still here even though science is often completely unscientific. So your point is moot.
So, you take it all on trust. Righto.Of course I don't just believe anything anyone says. I don't believe most of what you say, for example.
... I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.
What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.
What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.
Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.
Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?
What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.
Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.
Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.
What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.
Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.
Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
And why would you conclude that a fire alarm was an immediate threat to your life? ???
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we? We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.
I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.
What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.
What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.
Just as a total lack of ability to use logic is what I've come to expect from you, legion.
Why would self preservation kick in when someone pulls a fire alarm, if you have no reason to believe there's a fire unless you can observe it yourself?
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
And why would you conclude that a fire alarm was an immediate threat to your life? ???
I would need to investigate, shmeggley, because that is the purpose of fire alarms. To alert one that there is a fire. It could be a false alarm, but I would follow my sensory data (my ears hearing the alarm) and see if more sensory data confirmed the initial sensory data. Clear? What on earth is your point?
(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses.How else would one "experience" evidence?
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot. If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it. You're hearing it. And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.
You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".
This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.
Quoteto be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses.How else would one "experience" evidence?
Or are you saying that I have to directly collect the data myself for it to be "truly empirical"? If I want the high temperature readings for, say, New York for the next 5 days I will need to travel all the way there with a thermometer and measure it myself?
If Iuploaddownload readings from a weather station in New York would I not be using empirical evidence in your book? Of course this data would be empirical, as it clearly fits the definition:
"a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."
The temperature was observed in New York and then obtained by me. Empiricism says nothing about who collected the observations.
That's called being anal, not empirical.
empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical
"based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.
empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical
"based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.
This definition merely opposes observation/experience to theory/logic. It says nothing about who has to collect the information.
Btw, you might not believe this, but you can raise questions similar to this about any system of collecting data. Did you know that lawyers tend to stay away from eye-witness accounts because of their unreliability to the point where there is academic talk about abolishing eyewitness testimony? So there is a case where a sensor is preferred to an eyeball.
I never said they were perfect. I do challenge your assertion that they are inferior or less trustworthy than a human.
Yes, humans are untrustworthy, so you argument that you should not use other humans probably has some hidden premises, but just so you know, you are human and also prone to the same errors.
Why is scientist in quotes? Do you know what quotation marks are for?
Just so you know a bad scientist is still a a scientist. Based on your posts, you do not seem to know very much about science or evidence, so I thought you might want to know that.
I am willfully ignoring any other implications due to the stupefying hypocrisy and/or idiocy involved in them.
Your understanding of science is clearly negligible as you've made nearly 4000 posts but still feel the need to show up and defend the work of "scientists" "proving" the theory you hold so dear.
You are just another believer with nothing but other people's ideas in your head.
So don't ever question my understanding of science.
Your understanding of science is clearly negligible as you've made nearly 4000 posts but still feel the need to show up and defend the work of "scientists" "proving" the theory you hold so dear.
What? That made no sense.QuoteYou are just another believer with nothing but other people's ideas in your head.
Unlike you, you maverick. You are so original, there has never been another like you.QuoteSo don't ever question my understanding of science.
Tell you what: When you stop making posts saying the only evidence that can be trusted is something you have experienced first hand, I will happily stop inferring that you know nothing about science. Ball is in your court madam.
Pro-tip: You are not menacing so don't try to be.
Education, entertainment, research, etc...
You?
Education, entertainment, research, etc...
You?
To make people less trusting.
To make people less trusting.I'm afraid you're going about that in a really unproductive way.
Well, since you say that in the fire alarm example, you hearing the alarm is empirical evidence that there is a fire. Based on what you just described, it isn't. Maybe the alarm is faulty. Maybe some kid pulled it to get out of an astronomy test. Maybe a construction worker cut the wrong wire on accident. Since you weren't the one who pulled the alarm, how could you say that you empirically proved that there was a fire?Quoteto be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses.How else would one "experience" evidence?
Or are you saying that I have to directly collect the data myself for it to be "truly empirical"? If I want the high temperature readings for, say, New York for the next 5 days I will need to travel all the way there with a thermometer and measure it myself?
If Iuploaddownload readings from a weather station in New York would I not be using empirical evidence in your book? Of course this data would be empirical, as it clearly fits the definition:
"a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."
The temperature was observed in New York and then obtained by me. Empiricism says nothing about who collected the observations.
empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
adjective: empirical
"based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical. Let's say a sensor is collecting the readings in New York and it's faulty. You are relying on data that is incorrect. Unless you measure yourself how on earth do you know if the data is accurate? Is the sensor calibrated? How many samples are taken? The questions are numerous.
Education, entertainment, research, etc...
You?
To make people less trusting.
In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empirically prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot. If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it. You're hearing it. And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.
You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".
This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.
Yes, you need to take the readings yourself for them to be empirical.No, this is total bollocks. Nobody uses the word like this.
Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. More broadly speaking it can refer to any argument about definitions, semantics, or what label to apply to a person or idea - an actual dictionary may not be involved, sometimes the definition is purely personal, sometimes it can be a case of picking and choosing definitions raised by other sources, but the end use is the same. For the most part, "dictionary" is used as a short-cut to refer to any source of these definitions, including statement such as "well, if I define X like this...", which is possibly the most asinine form of the fallacy.
In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empirically prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot. If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it. You're hearing it. And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.
You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".
This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.
I'm sorry; do you always rely merely on a dictionary to support your pseudo-scientific claims? I would've thought a science text book would've been more appropriate in supporting a scientific concept. Yes?
Can I ask you how you can observe a ringing fire alarm in another room of your house if you happen to be deaf? You can't, obviously.
And you can clap your hands as much as you like, but you cannot prove to me—empirically—that it makes any sound, or even that you're doing so. Unless you happen to live next door to my house. Which, thankfully, you don't LOL.
I'm not sure as to why you seem to waste so much time looking up dictionary definitions every couple of posts; you obviously have a love of semantics to the Nth degree. Or you're obsessively pedantic. Or both maybe?
You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.
You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.
Of course not. The indoctrinated are here in force on this site. Talking of which, anyone know what happened to starman?
You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.
Of course not. The indoctrinated are here in force on this site. Talking of which, anyone know what happened to starman?
Well, since you agree that definitions need to be agreed upon, why are you insisting that observations and experience have the words "personal" or "first hand" in front of them in the definition you linked to?In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empirically prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.
Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?
And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot. If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it. You're hearing it. And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.
You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".
This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.
I'm sorry; do you always rely merely on a dictionary to support your pseudo-scientific claims? I would've thought a science text book would've been more appropriate in supporting a scientific concept. Yes?
Can I ask you how you can observe a ringing fire alarm in another room of your house if you happen to be deaf? You can't, obviously.
And you can clap your hands as much as you like, but you cannot prove to me—empirically—that it makes any sound, or even that you're doing so. Unless you happen to live next door to my house. Which, thankfully, you don't LOL.
I'm not sure as to why you seem to waste so much time looking up dictionary definitions every couple of posts; you obviously have a love of semantics to the Nth degree. Or you're obsessively pedantic. Or both maybe?
You have claimed many times to have a deep understanding of logic and science. If that were the case, you'd be aware that definitions have to be agreed upon otherwise you end up in ridiculous situations. Like the one you have put yourself in by redefining the words observe and empirical.
As for the other inane comments from markjo and crab: yawn.
f that were the case, you'd be aware that definitions have to be agreed uponAnd they have been agreed upon: ask any professional scientist what they think is meant by empirical and they will tell you the same thing. It certainly doesn't mean you have to make the measurements yourself - they would find that idea deeply silly.
Sadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.
If your entire debating tactic comes down to playing dictionary games, then you might as well just pack it in.
If your entire debating tactic comes down to playing dictionary games, then you might as well just pack it in.
When you're totally bereft of any empirical scientific evidence—as is legion—then semantics becomes a very important weapon in your arsenal.
And refuting "arguments" put forth by pedantic semanticists is like trying to herd cats; a hell of a lot of work for virtually no reward LOL.
I think there's a lot that trusts what legion has to say, they just don't all jump in and tell you lot. You see; people view the forum who will see the little posse of posters straining at the leash to put down the lone poster arguing against their beloved mainstream nonsense.Education, entertainment, research, etc...
You?
To make people less trusting.
Well, since no one trusts anything that you have to say, I'd say "Job well done."
You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.You assume because you are in numbers with an agenda of some sort, other wise you would not be here, simple as that.
You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.You assume because you are in numbers with an agenda of some sort, other wise you would not be here, simple as that.
You're not here to learn anything, you're here to try and batter down anyone who starts to think for themselves.
You know this and you know that we know it as well.
You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.You assume because you are in numbers with an agenda of some sort, other wise you would not be here, simple as that.
You're not here to learn anything, you're here to try and batter down anyone who starts to think for themselves.
You know this and you know that we know it as well.
As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.
You lose.
Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.
I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.
You lose.
Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.
Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.
Oh I would but it's not going to happen. You know this. I'm convinced you know this.I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.
You lose.
I bet. I'm convinced that if you walked on the moon yourself you would still not believe in space.
If your conclusions match those of the indoctrinated due to your free thinking then you have mistakenly took free thinking from the exact same thing you thought you were thinking against but followed subconsciously.Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.
You are quite right. Educating someone is just that: education.
If I was being a free thinker, I would reject what I was told, and seek the answers for myself. Which I have done. The fact that my conclusions match that of everyone else doesn't make me close minded or brainwashed. It simply means that facts are facts.
If your conclusions match those of the indoctrinated due to your free thinking then you have mistakenly took free thinking from the exact same thing you thought you were thinking against but followed subconsciously.Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.
You are quite right. Educating someone is just that: education.
If I was being a free thinker, I would reject what I was told, and seek the answers for myself. Which I have done. The fact that my conclusions match that of everyone else doesn't make me close minded or brainwashed. It simply means that facts are facts.
Oh I would but it's not going to happen. You know this. I'm convinced you know this.I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.
You lose.
I bet. I'm convinced that if you walked on the moon yourself you would still not believe in space.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are. ;)
Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?
Look it up.And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?
Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?
Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.
And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.
Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.
I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.
And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.
You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.
It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for those who are genuinely interested in truth.
Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...
How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.
I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.
How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?
See the problem?
I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.
I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.
But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?
Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.
For instance, if you're compiling a big database of temperature measurements, you'd want to make sure to include data from sources that use quality equipment, have guidelines for data recording and management, etc. It's not that complicated. But for a big project, with a lot of data, it's not practical, or even reasonable, to collect all the data yourself. Say you wanted to create a global map of temperatures so you can see how they change over time. To you, any such study would be totally invalid, since you can't personally verify every measurement.
I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"Scientists are also subject to adversarial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_review).
I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"Scientists are also subject to adversarial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_review).
I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"Scientists are also subject to adversarial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_review).
I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?
Are you suggesting that Global Warming isn't receiving plenty of review from adversaries? ???I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"Scientists are also subject to adversarial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_review).
I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
It wouldn't be totally invalid at all. But, by offloading certain tasks you introduce uncertainty.Of course! The assumption of uncertainty is at the heart of the scientific method, as well as empiricism:
knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.
Are you suggesting that Global Warming isn't receiving plenty of review from adversaries? ???I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"Scientists are also subject to adversarial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_review).
I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"Scientists are also subject to adversarial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_review).
I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?
The measurement of a faster than light neutrino.
The discovery of the Higgs Boson (ongoing)
The measurement of the expansion rate of the universe.
String Theory.
The Inflationary model of the Big Bang.
All of these topics were heavily scrutinized by the scientific community and in the case of the neutrino, found to be in error. String Theory is extremely controversial in the scientific community as you will be just as likely to find physicist who thinks it is hogwash as the think it the theory of everything.
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;
To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.
Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;
To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.
OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.
Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;
To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.
OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.
Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.
A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.I can't agree with that definition. A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs. If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience. They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor. Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor. There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.
However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.
I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video. Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.
Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?
You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;
To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.
OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.
Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.
Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.
Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.
He is using the term properly. Evidence is the available body of facts or information that whether or not something is true. Proof is what it is promoted when it is established to be true. It is not, however, empirical evidence. It is a representation of empirical evidence but I believe that without any logical discourse to even suggest it is fake, it is more likely to be a genuine photograph.
Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.
Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.
argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;
I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!
Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.
He is using the term properly. Evidence is the available body of facts or information that whether or not something is true. Proof is what it is promoted when it is established to be true. It is not, however, empirical evidence. It is a representation of empirical evidence but I believe that without any logical discourse to even suggest it is fake, it is more likely to be a genuine photograph.
That is not how science or logic work. You should know that.
Edit: "It is true because no one has proven it isn't"? Get real.
Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.
Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.
argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;
I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!
"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.
"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "
What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.
And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?
I'm not saying that it is true because nobody hasproven that it isn't. I'm saying that I have no reason to consider the possibility of it not being true. Do you have a reason?
Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.
Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.
argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;
I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!
"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.
"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "
What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.
And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?
Correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be suggesting that that photo (which comes from who-knows-where), proves, or, is evidence, that the earth is a sphere. On it's own. Case closed. Is that your position?
If not, what other proof or evidence do you have?
Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.
Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.
argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;
I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!
"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.
"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "
What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.
And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?
Correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be suggesting that that photo (which comes from who-knows-where), proves, or, is evidence, that the earth is a sphere. On it's own. Case closed. Is that your position?
If not, what other proof or evidence do you have?
I'm not saying that it is true because nobody hasproven that it isn't. I'm saying that I have no reason to consider the possibility of it not being true. Do you have a reason?
Well then, you are hopelessly unscientific, despite your claims to the contrary. I hope I don't have to tell you why.
The Clearest Image Of Planet Earth Ever Seen...SPACE: Picture of earth showing the entire North American continent, Central America, the northern half of South America, Greenland and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
Researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre have released the clearest and most complete image of Planet Earth ever seen. Compiled by imagery from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imagining Spectroradiometer (MODIS), which is onboard the satellite Terra, the crystal clear view of our home planet was taken from 700 km above the Earth's surface. Pieced together using thousands of images observed from the Terra satellite, this representation of our home planet is the most detailed image ever produced. Showing the entire North American continent, Central America, the northern half of South America, Greenland and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the NASA image captures the fragility of the Earth in one perfect shot.
PHOTOGRAPHY BY BARCROFT USA
UK Office, London.
T +44 845 370 2233
W www.barcroftmedia.com (http://www.barcroftmedia.com)
Australasian & Pacific Rim Office, Melbourne.
E [email protected]
T +613 9510 3188 or +613 9510 0688
W www.barcroftpacific.com (http://www.barcroftpacific.com)
Indian Office, Delhi.
T +91 997 1133 889
W www.barcroftindia.com (http://www.barcroftindia.com)
String theory is not science.
String theory is not science.
What an unmitigated misrepresentation of the truth!
I quote:
"M-theory is not complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with all the string theories. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency.
Some cosmologists are drawn to M-theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku Ph.D has remarked that M-theory may present us with a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt.
Stephen Hawking originally believed that M-theory may be the ultimate theory but later suggested that the search for understanding of mathematics and physics will never be complete. However, Hawking later changed his mind and stated, "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe".
—But at the same time, legion would undoubtedly claim that the flat earth hypothesis IS science. Thanks for the laugh mate!
“Trustworthy is earned not bought.”
(http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2010/9/2/201092182324866797_20.jpg)
String theory is not science.
What an unmitigated misrepresentation of the truth!
I quote:
"M-theory is not complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with all the string theories. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency.
Some cosmologists are drawn to M-theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku Ph.D has remarked that M-theory may present us with a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt.
Stephen Hawking originally believed that M-theory may be the ultimate theory but later suggested that the search for understanding of mathematics and physics will never be complete. However, Hawking later changed his mind and stated, "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe".
—But at the same time, legion would undoubtedly claim that the flat earth hypothesis IS science. Thanks for the laugh mate!
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*
Scientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
When did I suggest I was a 'flat earther'?In the context of every one of the 200+ posts you've made here.
The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate.Why is it that so many flat earthers expect us round earthers to do their homework for them on this forum? Google is your friend legion.
Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.Well, this is certainly a well-reasoned, logically-sound, persuasive rebuttal if ever I've seen one LOL. Such convincing science and indisputable rationale. Well done legion.
When did you take those pictures? Please give the specifics, such as camera type, lens, etc. Thanks.
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.
It appears it is only useless because it does not suit your needs. Surely there is a common enough understanding of the english language on this site that we can all understand the definition provided? If not, perhaps you should provide one?
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.[/quote]
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
It appears to me that there are 2 parts to the definition:
1. Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts
and
2. processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.
I'm pretty sure you were looking for #1. This isn't complicated legion. It's just a sentence with a conjunction in it.
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.
So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?Proof is only available to mathematicians, for everyone else it is evidence. And yes, it is empirical evidence. You like playing definition games, so how does the photo not meet the definition:
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
No one can say that Hawking could not become an FEer and that includes Hawking himself, until he is exposed to FET.Nope. I can state categorically that Stephen Hawking would NOT contemplate the notion of a flat earth for even a nanosecond. And there is NO scientifically-accredited flat earth "theory" as such; it's merely a hypothesis propounded by a few hundred people across the planet that have no training in geophysics and/or astrophysics. Would you care to name half a dozen scientists—from the estimated 6 million—that accept the flat earth theory? Probably not. QED.
There are Mensa FEers...Nope. You're just making that up. Unless you'd care to name a few. But you can't. QED again.
No one can say that Hawking could not become an FEer and that includes Hawking himself, until he is exposed to FET.
There are Mensa FEers and some would test out as Prometheus or Triple Nine like that, we can assume, would be the case with Hawking.
He will be a fine addition to TFES, like that of all those who realize proper Earth shape regardless of education or IQ.
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.
And if you had followed the link to the originating page, you would have found further clarification of the definition, and you may not have made yourself look too computer illiterate to be able to follow a hyperlink. Or do you need to be burped and put down for a nap after being spoon fed?
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.
And if you had followed the link to the originating page, you would have found further clarification of the definition, and you may not have made yourself look too computer illiterate to be able to follow a hyperlink. Or do you need to be burped and put down for a nap after being spoon fed?
We call them links nowadays. You know, like how telephones are now just... phones. Anyway, of course I followed your hyperlink before replying to your post. This is the "clarification of the definition" as you called it:
"Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena. Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. (National Science Education Standards, page 22)"
The "clarification of the definition" is just as vague and useless as the "definition".
Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.*sigh*Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.htmlScientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.
And if you had followed the link to the originating page, you would have found further clarification of the definition, and you may not have made yourself look too computer illiterate to be able to follow a hyperlink. Or do you need to be burped and put down for a nap after being spoon fed?
We call them links nowadays. You know, like how telephones are now just... phones. Anyway, of course I followed your hyperlink before replying to your post. This is the "clarification of the definition" as you called it:
"Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena. Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. (National Science Education Standards, page 22)"
The "clarification of the definition" is just as vague and useless as the "definition".
Can you at least say what's useless about it instead of just simply saying it is?
The "clarification of the definition" is just as vague and useless as the "definition".Did you ever consider that the definition of literacy in just about any broad field tends to be pretty vague? For example, how useful would you consider this definition of computer literacy?
Computer literacy is defined as the knowledge and ability to utilize computers and related technology efficiently, with a range of skills covering levels from elementary use to programming and advanced problem solving.[1] Computer literacy can also refer to the comfort level someone has with using computer programs and other applications that are associated with computers. Another valuable component is understanding how computers work and operate.
Still waiting for one of you flat-earthers to provide a bit of evidence that the Earth is flat. Anyone?The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and your OP says
(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)I have photos like this:
Oh, rabinoz, he dosen't want an answer.No, I asked a simple question, which has a simple, one word answer.
He's just proud of his stance.
Oh, rabinoz, he dosen't want an answer.No, I asked a simple question, which has a simple, one word answer.
He's just proud of his stance.
(https://theflatearth.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth.jpg)Poor dutchy, you still look, but cannot see and understand!
The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and I posted a photo with the query, "Does it look flat?"Still waiting for one of you flat-earthers to provide a bit of evidence that the Earth is flat. Anyone?The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and your OP says(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)I have photos like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)So, "Does it look flat?"
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - cropped
You pityfull sour entity do you reallly have no sense of humor whatsoever ?(https://theflatearth.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth.jpg)Poor dutchy, you still look, but cannot see and understand!The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and I posted a photo with the query, "Does it look flat?"Still waiting for one of you flat-earthers to provide a bit of evidence that the Earth is flat. Anyone?The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and your OP says(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)I have photos like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)So, "Does it look flat?"
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - cropped
And you still claim that we agree that "The earth is definitely flat! No wonder you never understand anything!
"Look flat" and "definitely is FLAT" are totally different!
Try:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/jl92kav27nbarlr/Earth%20Looks%20Flat.jpg?dl=1)
But would you dare claim that the photos in Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73749.msg2006434;topicseen#msg2006434) show that The earth definite is FLAT?
;D Yes ;DYou pityfull sour entity do you reallly have no sense of humor whatsoever ?(https://theflatearth.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth.jpg)Poor dutchy, you still look, but cannot see and understand!The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and I posted a photo with the query, "Does it look flat?"Still waiting for one of you flat-earthers to provide a bit of evidence that the Earth is flat. Anyone?The topic title asks: "Does it look flat?" and your OP says(http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg)I have photos like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)So, "Does it look flat?"
Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - cropped
And you still claim that we agree that "The earth is definitely flat! No wonder you never understand anything!
"Look flat" and "definitely is FLAT" are totally different!
Try:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/jl92kav27nbarlr/Earth%20Looks%20Flat.jpg?dl=1)
But would you dare claim that the photos in Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73749.msg2006434;topicseen#msg2006434) show that The earth definite is FLAT?