I respect Joe Rogan, he looked at the evidence and humbly admitted he was wrong.Yeah, but he was sincere in his beliefs....
It's not too late for the FE'rs here to do the same. This is a shining example of how one can be stubbornly wrong but also honest.
I respect Joe Rogan, he looked at the evidence and humbly admitted he was wrong.Yeah, but he was sincere in his beliefs....
It's not too late for the FE'rs here to do the same. This is a shining example of how one can be stubbornly wrong but also honest.
I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.
I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.
I don't blame him though. To be good at arguing with a moon denier you have to be more aware of their specific claims.
I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.
I don't blame him though. To be good at arguing with a moon denier you have to be more aware of their specific claims.
Fair enough. He did crush Rogan on the science though. I was really surprised to hear Rogan push the Nazi connection like it had specific relevance to the Apollo Hoax.
Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil. Standup comedian.
Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions. Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.
—End of story.
Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil. Standup comedian.
Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions. Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.
—End of story.
Argument from authority. End of story.
You literally have no idea how to debate do you?
You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything. Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil. Standup comedian.
Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions. Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.
—End of story.
Argument from authority. End of story.
You literally have no idea how to debate do you?
You should be aware that in order to competently debate anything of a complex scientific nature, one must be qualified to do so.
Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil. Standup comedian.
Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions. Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.
—End of story.
Argument from authority. End of story.
You literally have no idea how to debate do you?
You should be aware that in order to competently debate anything of a complex scientific nature, one must be qualified to do so. Joe Rogan is a stand-up comic, with absolutely zero scientific qualifications (which he happily admits to humself). On the other hand, Phil Plait is a world-renowned astrophysicist.
So in this particular debate (moderated by a magician!)
Rogan is totally, academically unequipped to debate with Plait,
and Plait showed a lot of good-humoured tolerance even agreeing to debate science with Rogan.
Personally, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
And, true to form, Rogan simply regurgitated the same old, same old, misinformation about the space missions that's been published on a thousand conspiracy sites over the years.
It was funny to see Rogan stumble on his very first claim—about the Van Allen radiation belts LOL. He couldn't even get the name of their discoverer correct, (James), which certainly proved his own admission that he knew nothing about space science.
So in this specific debate, there is no "claim to authority" being made—or suggested by me. Plait's extensive scientific qualifications form the very basis for his domination of this all-too-brief, one-sided encounter with the ill-informed Rogan. The only saving grace for Rogan (during this debate) is that he doesn't take himself too seriously, and a lot of what he says is purely tongue in cheek.
I do note though that you agree (with me) that "He did crush Rogan on the science though".
And surely science per se formed the entire foundation of the debate?
So... to answer your original question: Rogan made no new and/or compelling arguments to support his claims.
I want FEers and/or Hoax believers to point out the arguments that Rogan makes they find the most compelling:
You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything. Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.
You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything. Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.
Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics? Rogan and Plait are equally qualified to talk about the quality of hamburgers or to review a movie, but when it comes to pure science, Rogan just ain't in the running. And which he jokingly admits to at the start of the interview.
I'm actually more interested as to why alleged round earthers here are virtually defending Rogan and bad-mouthing Plait. Surely any genuine round earther should be taking the scientific piss out of Rogan's absurd meanderings? He's a top class comedian, but as even a schoolboy scientist he fails dismally. Sorry.
Hello? Is that you jroa?You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything. Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.
Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics?
You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.
You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything. Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.
Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics? Rogan and Plait are equally qualified to talk about the quality of hamburgers or to review a movie, but when it comes to pure science, Rogan just ain't in the running. And which he jokingly admits to at the start of the interview.
I'm actually more interested as to why alleged round earthers here are virtually defending Rogan and bad-mouthing Plait. Surely any genuine round earther should be taking the scientific piss out of Rogan's absurd meanderings? He's a top class comedian, but as even a schoolboy scientist he fails dismally. Sorry.
I still agree with the essence of most of what you say, I just utterly disagree with your delivery.
I still agree with the essence of most of what you say, I just utterly disagree with your delivery.
As is your prerogative. You should know by now that I'm the sort of person who calls it as he sees it (whether right or wrong). And you're more than welcome to disagree with my "delivery"—as you put it. No skin off my back.
Presumably then, by omission, you're quite happy with sceptimatic's "delivery" as you've not once questioned that?
Maybe you need to clarify just what you mean by "delivery"? Mine's totally disagreeable, but sceptimatic's is apparently okay with you?
—What a bizarre value judgement. ???
Fuck you are terrible at this.
Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing ::)
Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing ::)
Yup. Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.
Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing ::)
Yup. Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.
What did Ausgeoff admit to?
What did Ausgeoff admit to?
Not too much. Definitely not being guilty of many terrible and fallacious arguments.
What did Ausgeoff admit to?
Not too much. Definitely not being guilty of many terrible and fallacious arguments.
LOL..... you mean my "fallacious" arguments you're always rabbiting on about, but are unable to quote? ;D
Fe'ers accept their differences. Re'ers just gotta keep talking shit.Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing ::)
Yup. Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.
Fe'ers accept their differences.
Fe'ers accept their differences.
Nope. Flat earthers have zero things to actually agree upon, and which obviates them having any "differences".
No common flat earth map. No flat earth model. No flat earth photos. No flat earth diagrams. No flat earth scientists. No flat earth planetary system. No flat earth sun or moon model. No gravity. No rocket theory. No satellites. Etc.
And none of them can even agree on the veracity of their own flat earth Wiki. ;D
When you are all making it up as you go along, this is much easier.Fe'ers accept their differences.Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing ::)
Yup. Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.
I've never met rogan or plait therefore they don't exist like Idaho! Have u met them? What evidence do u have that they exist? If u have evidence I won't believe it since it will be a lie and I'm only interested in the truth. Pictures of them could be fakes.