All of Quantum Mechanics would be gone.
All of Quantum Mechanics would be gone.
And what would be the consequence of that?
No one disagrees that the world would be a worse place without the scientific model. However, it would also be worse without the zetetic model as well. It's meaningless to argue which is better or which is worse. They complement each other in their differences, like ying and yang.The zetetic model plays no part in world thinking.
The zetetic model plays no part in world thinking.
They hardly go hand in hand.
They hardly go hand in hand.
That's not quite what I said, is it?
They hardly go hand in hand.
That's not quite what I said, is it?
I suppose not, which is a good point. How can you appreciate both? A zeteticist can't appreciate the scientific method by definition, yet the scientific method is responsible for so much that zeteticism is destined not to achieve.
Cooking is all about experimentation. There would be no cake!
In all seriousness though, why is the zeteticism method better suited for determining the shape of the earth?
The zetetic method although not defined in mainstream literature is an approach that has been defined here. As such, in the context of this site, we can discuss it productively.
How can you argue zeteticism scientifically? It is an alternative to the SM.
How can you argue zeteticism scientifically? It is an alternative to the SM.
We can only argue things of a scientific nature from a purely scientific standpoint. How else can I prove that the flat earthers' "ice wall" doesn't exist for example?
And again, I can't agree that "zeteticism" is an "alternative" to the scientific method. That's like saying that a genuinely held belief in Santa Claus is a viable alternative as to how kids' Christmas presents appear under the tree. Or that a genuinely held belief in the existence of unicorns illustrates the truth of the bible as a viable alternative compared to animal evolution (see Psalms 92:10).
We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site. Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.
We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site. Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.
Why do you come here then? This was a perfectly nice discussion until you came in and insisted it's all make believe. If you're so sure the earth is round and we are all dead wrong why do you come and slather our boards with your venomous rebukes?
What exactly do you think that you're adding to our discussions?
How can you argue zeteticism scientifically? It is an alternative to the SM.
We can only argue things of a scientific nature from a purely scientific standpoint. How else can I prove that the flat earthers' "ice wall" doesn't exist for example?
And again, I can't agree that "zeteticism" is an "alternative" to the scientific method. That's like saying that a genuinely held belief in Santa Claus is a viable alternative as to how kids' Christmas presents appear under the tree. Or that a genuinely held belief in the existence of unicorns illustrates the truth of the bible as a viable alternative compared to animal evolution (see Psalms 92:10).
We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site. Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.
This would be all well and nice if only we could trust the foundations of science - its philosophical and logical claim to truth.Unless you have any empirical evidence that supports your implied claim that science is largely fraudulent, then you're arguing from personal opinion only. And unevidenced personal opinions are worth nothing in any meaningful debate.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.Personal opinion again. Evidence please.
At some point - and again later on many decision points - we come to a demarcation in any scientific philosophy that is made on convenience or faith and of course the current dialogue and context.Sounds good at first glance, but is ultimately without meaning. Modern science and philosophy are now two totally different disciplines. There is currently no contemporary philosophy involved in the sciences, which are purely theoretical. You need to go back to the periods of Democritus, Lucretius, or Diderot to find any evidence of philosophical input into science.
rottingroom: for this discussion to be in any way useful, it would be nice to have the zetetic and scientific methods defined. Then we can see where they agree and where they disagree.
As you started the thread, you are (probably) the best person to do this.
Edit: I'm surprised you didn't do this in your initial post. An oversight, hopefully.
Does not explain why the world is flat. And science has moved on since it was written.
These pages from Rowbotham's pamphlet, ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED (http://bit.ly/TZMxZN) are probably the most concise explanation of the zetetic method.
rottingroom: for this discussion to be in any way useful, it would be nice to have the zetetic and scientific methods defined. Then we can see where they agree and where they disagree.
As you started the thread, you are (probably) the best person to do this.
Edit: I'm surprised you didn't do this in your initial post. An oversight, hopefully.
There really isn't much confusion or debate about the scientific method. So no need for that. As far as the zetetic method goes my definition is shaky at best. My interpretations come from how it's used and described on this site so actually, someone like you is probably more suited for a definition than me.
That seems reasonable to me. Now we need a definition of the scientific method.
That seems reasonable to me. Now we need a definition of the scientific method.Seriously, do you not know how to Google the definition of a word?
Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.
What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.
There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.
dispute in and around problems???What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.
There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.
Yes, in and around problems in the field of phil. of science. A more directed question will yield a more directed answer.dispute in and around problems???What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.
There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.
Fair enough. Apologies for my jab.What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.
There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.
You are being ridiculous. Legion wanted a definition for a methodology that is already well defined. Why are you telling me to look things up? If you think there is a dispute then you provide the sources to that claim. He asked me to define it. I said that I am fine with what was stated in wikipedia. /inquiry
Stop making guesses about what you think I care about too. You're basically having a conversation with yourself.
Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
Have you done this to prove the shape of the earth?Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
Have you done this to prove the shape of the earth?Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
Plenty of data available to show a round earth. Where is the proof for a flat earth that has been tested in the last 10 years?Have you done this to prove the shape of the earth?Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
I am not the one making the claim; you are.
Please don't misquote me to make me sound like the uneducated RE noobs. Thanks.
J Davis,
To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.
In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.
There is currently no contemporary philosophy involved in the sciences, which are purely theoretical. You need to go back to the periods of Democritus, Lucretius, or Diderot to find any evidence of philosophical input into science.
Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do.Just which claims are you referring to?
And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.Truth or statement of fact?
The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.What problems with the scientific method are you referring to?
Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
You're the one claiming that the Bedford Level experiment proves the earth is flat jroa. Therefore it's entirely appropriate—and logical—that it's your responsibility to repeat the experiment yourself at some local waterway. The Bedford Level experiment is an interwoven part of the Zetetic theory, therefore you should do this experiment if for no other reason than further supporting the theory. Your claim; your proof.
We round earthers dispute the results of that experiment, and obviously we're unable to replicate any experimental results that we disagree with. In fact, if we were to repeat it with a laser theodolite, we'd actually disprove the results of the experiment.
So...the onus of proving the veracity of the experiment is yours jroa. Or are you happy to accept the experimental results without confirming them yourself? You seem very keen on ensuring that round earthers carry out themselves, and observe personally, all the experimental data we produce here.
Or are you saying that flat earthers don't have to comply with this? And if not, then why not?
There is currently no contemporary philosophy involved in the sciences, which are purely theoretical. You need to go back to the periods of Democritus, Lucretius, or Diderot to find any evidence of philosophical input into science.
This is quite demonstrably false. If you're making claims about truth and reality, there are philosophical issues at stake. This is like engineers claiming there is no theoretical physics involved in engineering. It's there, even if they don't have much direct contact with it on a day-to-day basis.
Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...
When did you do this? Please, post your data. Thanks.
I assumed you were talking about the Bedford Level experiment when you asked about "testing the levels". What "levels" were you referring to?
J Davis,Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.
To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.
The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.
In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.
It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.
J Davis,Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.
To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.
The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.
Science doesn't make claims concerning truth. A theory is an approximation of the truth and the theory most regarded by the scientific community has that status because it is more correct or "works" better than any alternatives.In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.
It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.
Such as what? This is the main question of the thread. What discoveries were made without the scientific method? I think that the fact that models are scrapped in favor of better models goes to show the power of science.
If we just assumed that the earth was flat because it seems so, then that would be zetetic. We would avoid all experiments that would indicate otherwise because they would be considered a waste of time and that would be zetetic... but as soon as you take in more information things change and we get a new theory such as, "the earth is round". Is the theory that the earth is flat wrong? No, it isn't because it nearly is on some scales. Is the theory that the earth is flat WRONGER than the the theory that the earth is round? Quite.
J Davis,Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.
To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.
The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.
Science doesn't make claims concerning truth. A theory is an approximation of the truth and the theory most regarded by the scientific community has that status because it is more correct or "works" better than any alternatives.In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.
It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.
Such as what? This is the main question of the thread. What discoveries were made without the scientific method? I think that the fact that models are scrapped in favor of better models goes to show the power of science.
If we just assumed that the earth was flat because it seems so, then that would be zetetic. We would avoid all experiments that would indicate otherwise because they would be considered a waste of time and that would be zetetic... but as soon as you take in more information things change and we get a new theory such as, "the earth is round". Is the theory that the earth is flat wrong? No, it isn't because it nearly is on some scales. Is the theory that the earth is flat WRONGER than the the theory that the earth is round? Quite.
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
J Davis,Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.
To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.
The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.
Science doesn't make claims concerning truth. A theory is an approximation of the truth and the theory most regarded by the scientific community has that status because it is more correct or "works" better than any alternatives.In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.
It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.
Such as what? This is the main question of the thread. What discoveries were made without the scientific method? I think that the fact that models are scrapped in favor of better models goes to show the power of science.
If we just assumed that the earth was flat because it seems so, then that would be zetetic. We would avoid all experiments that would indicate otherwise because they would be considered a waste of time and that would be zetetic... but as soon as you take in more information things change and we get a new theory such as, "the earth is round". Is the theory that the earth is flat wrong? No, it isn't because it nearly is on some scales. Is the theory that the earth is flat WRONGER than the the theory that the earth is round? Quite.
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
Quote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items without doing a single test?
What?
Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?Quote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
What?
Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?
Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?Quote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
What?
Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?
What?
Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?Quote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
What?
Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?
What?
What country are you from?
Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?Quote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
What?
Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?
What?
What country are you from?
What?
Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?Quote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
What?
Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?
What?
What country are you from?
What?
Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?Quote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomQuote from: legionQuote from: rottingroomWhat discoveries were made without the scientific method?
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.
Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?
What?
Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?
What?
What country are you from?
What?
Never heard of such a country. Do they speak English in "What"?
Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do.Just which claims are you referring to?
And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.Truth or statement of fact?
The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.What problems with the scientific method are you referring to?
There is no conflation of philosophy and theoretical physics. No engineer I've ever worked with has mentioned any philosophical precepts when he's been designing a 12-lane multispan suspension bridge.
You should have noticed that I was not the one who brought up levels.
Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite...
Legion is suffering under the misconception the following stuff wasn't discovered/theorised/manufactured without the aid of the scientific method, and by people with scientific accreditation:QuotePenicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite...
At any rate, I'm not quite certain of his connecting saccharine, discovered by a Russian scientist (Fahlberg) Viagra, discovered by three Pfizer scientists (Bell, Terrett and Brown), radioactivity, discovered by a French scientist (Becquerel), Teflon, discovered by a Ph.D chemist (Plunkett) or penicillin, discovered by a Scottish scientist (Fleming) with zeteticism.
As this thread is purportedly about the zetetic world, how then do coffee sweeteners and drugs for erectile dysfunction impact it scientifically? ;D
And, as per usual, legion—like many other flat earthers—is grasping at straws in an ultimately doomed effort to prove that science doesn't have all the answers about our universe, whereas the zetetic method does supply a lot of those answers. They're trying to make a case for their allegation that a lot of the high-tech stuff we take for granted in the world today isn't due solely to the scientific method—that somehow it all developed spontaneously and possibly aided by the efforts of zeteticism.
—Which of course is all irrefutably absurd.
1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to. You are interpreting it wrong.Nope. The discussion went thusly:
2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.Nor did he claim to be a round earther. Unless you have any viable evidence to the contrary, then all his comments indicate that he's a flat earther.
3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.Yep. As I do for all round earthers. The divide is simple—one either accepts the round earth model or rejects it. Those who reject it are flat earthers. Or are you maybe suggesting (as I did in the past) that there are some flat earth "agnostics" here, or as I call then, fence-sitters?
1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to. You are interpreting it wrong.Nope. The discussion went thusly:
• Lord Wilmore claimed: "A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved..."
• Rottingroom asked: "What discoveries were made without the scientific method?"
• Legion answered: "Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite..."
I then produced evidence that proved that this claim (of both Lord Wilmore and legion) was demonstrably wrong. No misinterpretation evident.
2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.Nor did he claim to be a round earther. Unless you have any viable evidence to the contrary, then all his comments indicate that he's a flat earther.[/quote]
3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.Yep. As I do for all round earthers. The divide is simple—one either accepts the round earth model or rejects it. Those who reject it are flat earthers. Or are you maybe suggesting (as I did in the past) that there are some flat earth "agnostics" here, or as I call then, fence-sitters?
1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to. You are interpreting it wrong.Nope. The discussion went thusly:
• Lord Wilmore claimed: "A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved..."
• Rottingroom asked: "What discoveries were made without the scientific method?"
• Legion answered: "Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite..."
I then produced evidence that proved that this claim (of both Lord Wilmore and legion) was demonstrably wrong. No misinterpretation evident.
Firstly you provided the names of the scientists responsible for the discovery, which is not evidence of the method used to discover them. Second, discovering something by accident is hardly evidence of the scientific method in practice.Quote2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.Nor did he claim to be a round earther. Unless you have any viable evidence to the contrary, then all his comments indicate that he's a flat earther.
3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.Yep. As I do for all round earthers. The divide is simple—one either accepts the round earth model or rejects it. Those who reject it are flat earthers. Or are you maybe suggesting (as I did in the past) that there are some flat earth "agnostics" here, or as I call then, fence-sitters?
As I have no time for confirmed idiots or Agents of the Strange, I'll be ignoring all of his posts from now on.
His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theoryIn reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory". That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that). There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.
You all need to learn how to quote properly.Quote from: legionHis stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theoryIn reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory". That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that). There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.
There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?). Weirdly, they all work.
Have they ever mentioned relativity or quantum mechanics? No? I guess this means that these theories have no bearing whatsover on their 12-lane multispan suspension bridge. Oh sorry - you mean they can do their jobs without knowing anything about those things? I agree, but that doesn't mean those concepts aren't involved does it?
You all need to learn how to quote properly.Well, there kinda, sort is. In fact, there is a whole branch of earth science dedicated to measuring the size and form of the earth. It's called geodesy (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_geodesy/welcome.html).Quote from: legionHis stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theoryIn reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory". That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that). There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.
Well, there kinda, sort is. In fact, there is a whole branch of earth science dedicated to measuring the size and form of the earth. It's called geodesy (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_geodesy/welcome.html).Whatever the shape of the earth, you could still have geodetics. Geodesy is no more "round earth theory" than geology, geography, astronomy etc.
You all need to learn how to quote properly.Quote from: legionHis stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theoryIn reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory". That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that). There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.
There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?). Weirdly, they all work.
You all need to learn how to quote properly.Quote from: legionHis stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theoryIn reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory". That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that). There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.
There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?). Weirdly, they all work.
When, exactly, was the time that everybody converted from the flat earth (belief) to the round earth (fact)?
As somebody else said here, there was no instantaneous mass conversion. Even more than 2,000 years ago the bible implied that the earth was some sort of sphere, suspended in the firmament. Job 26:7 says; He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. And Isaiah 40:22 says; It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.
When, exactly, was the time that everybody converted from the flat earth (belief) to the round earth (fact)?
PS: Early last year, a guest (?) named "Thork" posted exactly the same image to support his claim that the earth was flat LOL. Needless to say, his subsequent illogical justifications and rationale in using this image for that purpose were totally invalidated.
Thork is worth 10 times you and I combined.Don't underestimate your own capabilities that readily jroa (or mine too for that matter). If Thork truly accepted a flat earth model without even considering the alternative of a spherical earth, then he's certainly not worth 10 times my intellectual capacity. Sorry.
It is amusing to see noobs refer to Thork as a "Guest".Well, that's simply because this site refers to him as a "guest". I could well say it's even more amusing that this site calls him that—seeing as you seem to regard him as some sort of flat earth "legend".
Thork was a legend and he can be found talked about in all kinds of forums not related to TFES.Never heard of the guy. Can you please link me to a few other sites that "talk about him"?
He is a jerk, and a pompous ass, but he had an answer to every noob question you could think of.Personally, I have no time for "jerks" and "pompous asses" because usually they're so far up themselves they can't construct a rational argument to save themselves. Those who patronise others and consider themselves God's gift to mankind usually fall the hardest when confronted with someone who doesn't have those impeding constraints.
He is now, sadly, only on the other site.Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass? And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.
Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass? And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.
Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass? And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.
I showed him my post and he liked it. He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him. By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted.
I'm not sure anyone does. He had his moderator status stripped from here and threw a tantrum - that's why he's down as guest.Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass? And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.
I showed him my post and he liked it. He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him. By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted.
In that case, it makes his viewpoint even more worthless (if that's possible LOL).
According to DSM-IV-TR, narcissistic personality disorder symptoms include expectations of being recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments; envy of others and a belief others envy him; a preoccupation with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence; arrogance in attitudes and behaviour.
—Why would anybody treat the opinions of someone like this with respect?
That definition is Thork to the letter.
lol. Thork is worth 10 times you and I combined.lol. Thork couldn't even tell the difference between a picture taken with a zoom lens and one taken with a wide angle lens.
I'm not sure anyone does. He had his moderator status stripped from here and threw a tantrum - that's why he's down as guest.Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass? And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.
I showed him my post and he liked it. He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him. By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted.
In that case, it makes his viewpoint even more worthless (if that's possible LOL).
According to DSM-IV-TR, narcissistic personality disorder symptoms include expectations of being recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments; envy of others and a belief others envy him; a preoccupation with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence; arrogance in attitudes and behaviour.
—Why would anybody treat the opinions of someone like this with respect?
What does Daniel think of all this?I'm not sure anyone does. He had his moderator status stripped from here and threw a tantrum - that's why he's down as guest.Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass? And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.
I showed him my post and he liked it. He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him. By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted.
In that case, it makes his viewpoint even more worthless (if that's possible LOL).
According to DSM-IV-TR, narcissistic personality disorder symptoms include expectations of being recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments; envy of others and a belief others envy him; a preoccupation with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence; arrogance in attitudes and behaviour.
—Why would anybody treat the opinions of someone like this with respect?
He was a Curator, not a Moderator. Other than that, you are correct.
Also, American's >o<
What does Daniel think of all this?