The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Tgor on February 23, 2012, 06:36:47 PM

Title: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Tgor on February 23, 2012, 06:36:47 PM
I think that the earth is in a superposition of every shape at once.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 23, 2012, 06:37:47 PM
Q: Shape of the earth?
A: Flat

Hope I've helped  :)
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Tgor on February 23, 2012, 06:40:20 PM
This is just asking for everyones opinions, glad that you voted.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: hoppy on February 23, 2012, 06:52:39 PM
The earth is a hexagonal prism, I was not able to vote.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Tgor on February 23, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
The earth is a hexagonal prism, I was not able to vote.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 25, 2012, 08:09:40 AM
Definitely flat.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: brad1153 on February 25, 2012, 08:55:51 AM
According to a collection of evidence worldwide by many scientists through countless experiments and observations the earth is a globe. According to this individual website through unsupported theories the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 25, 2012, 08:59:13 AM
According to a collection of evidence worldwide by many scientists through countless experiments and observations the earth is a globe. According to this individual website through unsupported theories the earth is flat.
I am a leading scientist. The earth is flat. Statement disproved.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: brad1153 on February 25, 2012, 09:01:45 AM
Quote
I am a leading scientist. The earth is flat. Statement disproved.

Nobody here is a world leading scientist, you can pretend to be if you want, but your not. Infact i'm not sure if you are jokeing or not.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Pongo on February 25, 2012, 09:02:05 AM
Flatter than my prom date.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 25, 2012, 11:32:11 AM
I am a leading scientist.
In what field of science are you leading?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 25, 2012, 12:38:03 PM
I am a leading scientist.
In what field of science are you leading?
And what evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

In my profession, we use the number of times another article in the top journal of your field cites an article that you were first author on. What's your number? How can we verify that number?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 25, 2012, 05:23:19 PM
I am first author in two publications and second author in another publication.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 25, 2012, 07:25:48 PM
I am first author in two publications and second author in another publication.
So your number is zero, yet you think that you are a leader in your field. Nope.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 25, 2012, 07:32:40 PM
 ??? What are you on about?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 25, 2012, 08:21:06 PM
??? What are you on about?
To refresh your memory:

I am a leading scientist.
In what field of science are you leading?
And what evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

In my profession, we use the number of times another article in the top journal of your field cites an article that you were first author on. What's your number? How can we verify that number?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 26, 2012, 05:43:57 AM
What might your profession be clocktower? What consitutes a top journal? Why is it first author only? Last author is reserved for the PI of a lab.
I have been cited in other papers, I am a leading scientist.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: brad1153 on February 26, 2012, 06:22:22 AM
Quote
I have been cited in other papers, I am a leading scientist.

I don't remember seeing evidence for that claim, perhapts you could provide some?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2012, 07:01:36 AM
I am first author in two publications and second author in another publication.

That still doesn't answer the question of what field you are leading in. 
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 26, 2012, 08:19:03 AM
What might your profession be clocktower?
How is that relevant? It's academia, by the way.
Quote
What consitutes a top journal?
Our department uses JCR. See http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/ (http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/) and http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/journmag/journalcitations.html#sect2 (http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/journmag/journalcitations.html#sect2).
Quote
Why is it first author only? Last author is reserved for the PI of a lab. 
You'll have to take your concern about the reason first author is most respected in terms of leading with academia. The first position is reserved for the PI. Reference: http://www.sportsci.org/resource/writing/author.html (http://www.sportsci.org/resource/writing/author.html)
Quote
I have been cited in other papers, I am a leading scientist.
Yet you haven't provided your number. I wonder the reason. If you are leading, your number should be more that the median number of all published scientists in your field.


Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 26, 2012, 08:29:53 AM
From your own source:
Quote
After deciding who will and will not be an author it is necessary to decide the order of the authors. It is important for young authors to understand that there are two positions that count: first and last. And attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when you are young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As your career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from your lab, you are the main person responsible for its contents,
::)
Such a basic mistake of a major convention makes me think that you in fact, have no experience in the research world.

Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 26, 2012, 08:42:06 AM
From your own source:
Quote
After deciding who will and will not be an author it is necessary to decide the order of the authors. It is important for young authors to understand that there are two positions that count: first and last. And attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when you are young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As your career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from your lab, you are the main person responsible for its contents,
::)
Such a basic mistake of a major convention makes me think that you in fact, have no experience in the research world.
I do agree with the paragraph above. But for tenure track, our department uses the number I described, probably because tenure is a concern of our newer professors. Once your number is high enough, you will get a chance to lead research projects, often with the newer professors doing the work.

Now what's your number? Who says besides you that you're a leading scientist in the field? Your department chair? Your company? The organization that oversees research in your field, like the AMA does for medicine? What journals have you published in? How many times did your article get the cover?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2012, 08:45:41 AM
What might your profession be clocktower?
How is that relevant? It's academia, by the way.
Appeal to false authority fallacy.  You must show that your area of expertise is relevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 26, 2012, 08:56:34 AM
What might your profession be clocktower?
How is that relevant? It's academia, by the way.
Appeal to false authority fallacy.  You must show that your area of expertise is relevant to the discussion.
You're right. Ichy can't just claim that he's a leading scientist and expect us to accept that as true or relevant.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 28, 2012, 10:22:17 AM
It's quite possible that Ichy simply does not want to reveal this information for privacy reasons, which is quite understandable. You don't seem too keen to reveal your own info CT, so all of this focus does have a somewhat hypocritical smell.


Regarding Ichy's credentials, I have personally read (glowing) articles in mainstream publications about him - he is doing very well in his field. People can take me at my word or ignore it - it's their business.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 28, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
It's quite possible that Ichy simply does not want to reveal this information for privacy reasons, which is quite understandable. You don't seem too keen to reveal your own info CT, so all of this focus does have a somewhat hypocritical smell.


Regarding Ichy's credentials, I have personally read (glowing) articles in mainstream publications about him - he is doing very well in his field. People can take me at my word or ignore it - it's their business.

Which is anecdotal evidence that his field is not anything to do with experimental biology. Because I've seen his comedy plant experiment results.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: ClockTower on February 28, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
It's quite possible that Ichy simply does not want to reveal this information for privacy reasons, which is quite understandable. You don't seem too keen to reveal your own info CT, so all of this focus does have a somewhat hypocritical smell.


Regarding Ichy's credentials, I have personally read (glowing) articles in mainstream publications about him - he is doing very well in his field. People can take me at my word or ignore it - it's their business.
Why do Ichy's privacy wishes matter? No one has asked him to reveal personally identifying information, have they? I asked for "his number".

I would agree that if I asked Ichy for personally identifying information and refused to answer the same request of myself, that would be hypocritical. Now did you have something to say about that other than vague innuendo?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 28, 2012, 04:09:09 PM
Which is anecdotal evidence that his field is not anything to do with experimental biology. Because I've seen his comedy plant experiment results.


Well, actually the opposite is the case. Like I said, take my word or leave it. No skin off my nose.


Why do Ichy's privacy wishes matter? No one has asked him to reveal personally identifying information, have they? I asked for "his number".

I would agree that if I asked Ichy for personally identifying information and refused to answer the same request of myself, that would be hypocritical. Now did you have something to say about that other than vague innuendo?


I wasn't talking about personal information, but information he may want to keep private, for whatever reason. And you have been asked several direct questions, the answers to which would not be personally identifying, but have not answered them. That is your right, but it is also somewhat hypocrtical.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 28, 2012, 08:07:55 PM
Regarding Ichy's credentials, I have personally read (glowing) articles in mainstream publications about him - he is doing very well in his field.

However, does Ichy "doing very well in his field" make him an authority on the true shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 28, 2012, 08:11:52 PM
Regarding Ichy's credentials, I have personally read (glowing) articles in mainstream publications about him - he is doing very well in his field.

However, does Ichy "doing very well in his field" make him an authority on the true shape of the earth?


I didn't claim it did, and nor did he. Assuming this is just an accidental strawman argument, do you have a point?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 28, 2012, 08:26:18 PM
Regarding Ichy's credentials, I have personally read (glowing) articles in mainstream publications about him - he is doing very well in his field.

However, does Ichy "doing very well in his field" make him an authority on the true shape of the earth?

I didn't claim it did, and nor did he. Assuming this is just an accidental strawman argument, do you have a point?

Sounds like he did to me.
I am a leading scientist. The earth is flat. Statement disproved.
If Ichy's field of expertise is not relevant to the shape of the earth, then he is committing an Appeal to False Authority fallacy. 
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 28, 2012, 08:54:29 PM
No, he wasn't. He was responding to another poster in an attempt to disprove their argument. I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority. As in, not even remotely.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 28, 2012, 09:25:42 PM
No, he wasn't. He was responding to another poster in an attempt to disprove their argument. I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority. As in, not even remotely.

Ichy stated that his is a leading scientist.  Ichy then stated that the earth is flat.  Either he committed an appeal to false authority or he committed a non sequitur.  Either way, it was fallacious.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 29, 2012, 06:44:08 AM
No, he wasn't. He was responding to another poster in an attempt to disprove their argument. I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority. As in, not even remotely.

Ichy stated that his is a leading scientist.  Ichy then stated that the earth is flat.  Either he committed an appeal to false authority or he committed a non sequitur.  Either way, it was fallacious.

Wilmore doesn't understand fallacies, give it up. You only have to look at him trumpeting about the George Scott fallacy to see that.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 29, 2012, 10:21:51 AM
The comment before mine portrayed RET as supported by many scientists while FET is oppositely unsupported theories.
I disagree since I am a leading scientist and have supported FET.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 29, 2012, 11:44:02 AM
The comment before mine portrayed RET as supported by many scientists while FET is oppositely unsupported theories.
I disagree since I am a leading scientist and have supported FET.

Be that as it may, unless your area of expertise somehow deals with the shape of the earth, my contention that you are presenting yourself as a false authority stands.  Exposing fallacies in RE'er logic does not necessarily strengthen FET, especially when you commit the exact same fallacy.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Teddy II on February 29, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
From my point of view, it seems to be the shape of a rotting pineapple. But round seems to be the closest alternative.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 29, 2012, 02:12:15 PM
The comment before mine portrayed RET as supported by many scientists while FET is oppositely unsupported theories.
I disagree since I am a leading scientist and have supported FET.

You may hold the job of scientist in some fashion, but in terms of outlook and philosophy and observation of the world around you, you are no scientist at all. The massive amount of finger-in-ear data ignoring you have to do in order to support FET proves that. If you want to dispute that, I am happy to post a list of pieces of data you have to ignore or accuse of being false in order to support FET.
I'd be interested to see if you can find a list of data that has to be ignored or acused of falsity in order to support RET. Bet you can't. Inb4 Bedford Level Experiment, as it has been repeated more times showing curvature than it has showing flatness.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 29, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
No, he wasn't. He was responding to another poster in an attempt to disprove their argument. I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority. As in, not even remotely.

Ichy stated that his is a leading scientist.  Ichy then stated that the earth is flat.  Either he committed an appeal to false authority or he committed a non sequitur.  Either way, it was fallacious.


If his post was fallacious, it was fallacious only by virtue of the argument he was responding to. He did not alter the structure of the argument in any way, but merely offered evidence he felt contradicted the argument presented.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 29, 2012, 04:01:31 PM
If his post was fallacious, it was fallacious only by virtue of the argument he was responding to. He did not alter the structure of the argument in any way, but merely offered evidence he felt contradicted the argument presented.

So you're saying that the two fallacies (his and the one that he responded to) canceled each other out?  ???
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 29, 2012, 04:16:07 PM
No, just that if fallacial logic was used, it was used by the poster he responded to. Responding to that argument in its own terms is not really committing the fallacy. One can object to or disprove a fallacial argument without challenging its fallacial nature.


For example, let's take the following hypothetical argument:


P1: All dogs have two legs.

P2: Socrates has two legs.

Therefore, Socrates is a dog.


Now, the argument is certainly fallacial, but I don't have to challenge its logical status to refute it. I can simply oppose the absurd P1 by presenting a four-legged dog. It doesn't mean I've committed the same fallacy as the person presenting the argument, or indeed any other fallacy. I'm simply objecting to one of the premises.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on February 29, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
Unfortunately, your example is not the same type of argument that Ichi responded to.  A better example would be:

    RE'er: Leading scientists (in undisclosed fields) say that the earth is round.
    FE'er: I'm a leading scientist (in an undisclosed field) and I say that the earth is flat.

Both statements are fallacious because neither has shown that any of the scientists are experts in any field of science that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 01, 2012, 02:04:20 AM
Unfortunetly, that wasn't the situation Markjo nor the premise I had a problem with.
Putting forth that scientists have support of RET while there is no support of FET is what I disagreed with.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: iwanttobelieve on March 01, 2012, 09:04:11 AM
its a giant disc, probably endless (until an edge can be verified)
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 05, 2012, 09:35:10 AM
Unfortunately, your example is not the same type of argument that Ichi responded to.  A better example would be:

    RE'er: Leading scientists (in undisclosed fields) say that the earth is round.
    FE'er: I'm a leading scientist (in an undisclosed field) and I say that the earth is flat.

Both statements are fallacious because neither has shown that any of the scientists are experts in any field of science that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.


What exactly is fallacious about the second statement? In isolation it's a statement of fact that disproves the first statement. That the first statement constituted a fallacious argument to begin with has no bearing on whether or not the second statement is fallacious.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on March 05, 2012, 01:11:17 PM
Wilmore, don't forget you admitted today that a fallacious argument can still be correct.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 05, 2012, 04:55:39 PM
Wilmore, don't forget you admitted today that a fallacious argument can still be correct.


Strictly speaking, I said that someone could reach a conclusion that was true despite using a fallacious argument. In any event, I don't see why that's relevant here - markjo has simply accused Ichi of committing a fallacy which he simply did not.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on March 05, 2012, 09:49:17 PM
Unfortunately, your example is not the same type of argument that Ichi responded to.  A better example would be:

    RE'er: Leading scientists (in undisclosed fields) say that the earth is round.
    FE'er: I'm a leading scientist (in an undisclosed field) and I say that the earth is flat.

Both statements are fallacious because neither has shown that any of the scientists are experts in any field of science that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.


What exactly is fallacious about the second statement? In isolation it's a statement of fact that disproves the first statement. That the first statement constituted a fallacious argument to begin with has no bearing on whether or not the second statement is fallacious.

The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 06, 2012, 09:29:31 AM
The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?


But Ichi never claimed that it did. All he claimed to have done was disprove a premise of the orginal fallacious argument. Doing so does not involve committing the fallacy in question.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on March 06, 2012, 11:19:44 AM
The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?


But Ichi never claimed that it did. All he claimed to have done was disprove a premise of the orginal fallacious argument. Doing so does not involve committing the fallacy in question.

How did Ichi disprove the premise of the original fallacious argument? 
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 06, 2012, 01:50:13 PM
The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?


But Ichi never claimed that it did. All he claimed to have done was disprove a premise of the orginal fallacious argument. Doing so does not involve committing the fallacy in question.

How did Ichi disprove the premise of the original fallacious argument?


I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on March 06, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?


But Ichi never claimed that it did. All he claimed to have done was disprove a premise of the orginal fallacious argument. Doing so does not involve committing the fallacy in question.

How did Ichi disprove the premise of the original fallacious argument?


I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority.

All of this is irrelevant, because Wilmore has admitted an argument can be totally gobbledegook but the claimant can still be correct.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Tausami on March 06, 2012, 03:06:23 PM
The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?


But Ichi never claimed that it did. All he claimed to have done was disprove a premise of the orginal fallacious argument. Doing so does not involve committing the fallacy in question.

How did Ichi disprove the premise of the original fallacious argument?


I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority.

All of this is irrelevant, because Wilmore has admitted an argument can be totally gobbledegook but the claimant can still be correct.

What you're referring to is Wilmore's reference to a logical fallacy which states that just because someone believes something for bad reasons doesn't mean what they believe in is incorrect. For example, if I think someone is in my house hiding in my closet, the fact that I believe it based on noticing the door being open (which in this analogy, was caused by a gust of wind) does not mean that it's impossible that there is someone hiding in my closet with a knife.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: markjo on March 06, 2012, 04:55:38 PM
The second statement is just as fallacious as the first because neither "scientist" has shown that their area of expertise has anything to do with the shape of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that appeal to false authority fallacy does not apply to claims that the earth is flat?


But Ichi never claimed that it did. All he claimed to have done was disprove a premise of the orginal fallacious argument. Doing so does not involve committing the fallacy in question.

How did Ichi disprove the premise of the original fallacious argument?


I'm not sure he did, as I don't think brad made the claim Ichi appeared to think he'd made, but no matter what way you look at it, it wasn't an appeal to false authority.

If Ichi is using his status as a "leading scientist" to disprove the claim that the earth is round and his field of expertise has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then I don't see how it isn't an appeal to (his own) false authority.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 07, 2012, 09:22:58 AM
If Ichi is using his status as a "leading scientist" to disprove the claim that the earth is round and his field of expertise has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then I don't see how it isn't an appeal to (his own) false authority.


But he isn't doing that! He was using it to disprove the (perceived) claim that no leading scientists think that the Earth is flat.


All of this is irrelevant, because Wilmore has admitted an argument can be totally gobbledegook but the claimant can still be correct.


So? Seriously, do you actually understand the point I was making? It's not controvertial - it's as simple as saying that people can be right for the wrong reasons. If there's a question on a maths test, I can go about it completely the wrong way but still by fluke get the correct answer. We can arrest a man for a crime based on completely invalid or fabricated evidence, but it might turn out that he confesses because he actually did it. Similarly, you can use a really stupid, utterly fallacious argument that is completely lacking in evidence, but by chance reach a conclusion that is nevertheless true.


This is simple stuff, and I don't understand why you think it's argumentatively compromising or embarrassing for me. In any event, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so if you want to discuss it further, create a topic in the Philosophy board and stop cross-pollinating your ignorance.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on March 07, 2012, 09:54:33 AM
I didn't say it was supposed to be embarrassing or argumentatively compromising, you arrogant man. I merely stated that since whether one argues with a fallacy or without a fallacy doesn't have any bearing on one's correctness, as you admit, carrying on for page after page after page about whether people are arguing fallaciously or not is utterly pointless and if I was a mod I would consider it derailment.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 07, 2012, 11:18:32 AM
I didn't say it was supposed to be embarrassing or argumentatively compromising, you arrogant man. I merely stated that since whether one argues with a fallacy or without a fallacy doesn't have any bearing on one's correctness, as you admit, carrying on for page after page after page about whether people are arguing fallaciously or not is utterly pointless and if I was a mod I would consider it derailment.


Just because bad arguments can by fluke lead to a valid conclusion, does not mean we should let people get away with bad arguments. By your reasoning, all debate and discussion is pointless.


I don't agree with markjo that Ichi's point was fallacious, but if it were, it would be absolutely legitimate of him to point it out. Nothing good comes from a bad argument.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on March 07, 2012, 04:11:51 PM
I didn't say it was supposed to be embarrassing or argumentatively compromising, you arrogant man. I merely stated that since whether one argues with a fallacy or without a fallacy doesn't have any bearing on one's correctness, as you admit, carrying on for page after page after page about whether people are arguing fallaciously or not is utterly pointless and if I was a mod I would consider it derailment.


Just because bad arguments can by fluke lead to a valid conclusion, does not mean we should let people get away with bad arguments. By your reasoning, all debate and discussion is pointless.


The stuff you have been reduced to debating is pointless as it matters so infinitesimally little. Honestly, whether Ichi is or is not "a leading scientist" has so little bearing on the shape of the earth it's really not worth bothering with.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 07, 2012, 09:09:53 PM
The stuff you have been reduced to debating is pointless as it matters so infinitesimally little.


But who has reduced us to debating it? RE'ers. The original point was made by a RE'er, and the subsequent dispute over Ichi's (non) fallacious claim was also started by a RE'er. I agree that Ichi's status as a leading scientist has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, but I didn't claim it did to begin with (and neither did he).
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: The Knowledge on March 08, 2012, 03:35:47 AM
The stuff you have been reduced to debating is pointless as it matters so infinitesimally little.


But who has reduced us to debating it? RE'ers. The original point was made by a RE'er, and the subsequent dispute over Ichi's (non) fallacious claim was also started by a RE'er. I agree that Ichi's status as a leading scientist has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, but I didn't claim it did to begin with (and neither did he).

TBH it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. A debate can only happen with more than one side engaged in it.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: New Earth on March 14, 2012, 02:06:09 PM
The earth is not round nor flat, it is both. Our world is a sphere resting upon an infinite flat surface otherwise known as the "greater earth" according to rig veda of ancient India.  There are many other Spheres (planets) all connected by infinite flat earth (universe) I theorize that an entrance to this infinite earth is beyond the south pole. The famous golden Mt Meru is also located outside globe earth on infinite earth plain. On top of MT Meru is the city of the gods. Now the reason they are called gods is because the ancients though that their lifestyle and technology was divine. In reality they are just people like us but very advanced. The infinite earth is also a 5D reality which means thoughts create matter. Once you enter infinite earth plain other global worlds can also become accessable. These days scientists talk about parallel earths or worlds, but they cannot explain where they are, so they say its in another dimension. But they are not in another dimension they are all connected by infinite earth plain. The Greater earth.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2012, 11:08:52 PM
The earth is not round nor flat, it is both. Our world is a sphere resting upon an infinite flat surface otherwise known as the "greater earth" according to rig veda of ancient India.  There are many other Spheres (planets) all connected by infinite flat earth (universe) I theorize that an entrance to this infinite earth is beyond the south pole. The famous golden Mt Meru is also located outside globe earth on infinite earth plain. On top of MT Meru is the city of the gods. Now the reason they are called gods is because the ancients though that their lifestyle and technology was divine. In reality they are just people like us but very advanced. The infinite earth is also a 5D reality which means thoughts create matter. Once you enter infinite earth plain other global worlds can also become accessable. These days scientists talk about parallel earths or worlds, but they cannot explain where they are, so they say its in another dimension. But they are not in another dimension they are all connected by infinite earth plain. The Greater earth.

You should be a science fiction writer, because you're really good at tearing up the basics of science for the sake of making your theories sound larger than life.
Title: Re: Shape of the earth?
Post by: New Earth on March 16, 2012, 03:38:56 AM
Yes I should be science fiction writer. George Lucas aint got shit on me.