The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: macrohard on July 20, 2014, 02:32:18 PM

Title: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: macrohard on July 20, 2014, 02:32:18 PM
As an FE, how do people react when you share your theories?  I'm referring to real life and in person relationships.

How do your coworkers respond?
Family members?
Potential romantic interests?

Do you tell them your views on the first date?  Do you keep it a secret forever due to fear of rejection from the ignorant and indoctrinated populace?  Would you be willing to be involved with someone who did not take your position seriously?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: sceptimatic on July 20, 2014, 02:58:47 PM
As an FE, how do people react when you share your theories?  I'm referring to real life and in person relationships.

How do your coworkers respond?
Family members?
Potential romantic interests?

Do you tell them your views on the first date?  Do you keep it a secret forever due to fear of rejection from the ignorant and indoctrinated populace?  Would you be willing to be involved with someone who did not take your position seriously?
As far as workers go, it's about not putting out my thoughts on the table. It's all about, what if, as in: what if the Earth was something different. Or, what if space was different. Stuff like that. It can lead to a conversation where someone might say, "well, yeah, I suppose things could well be different in some aspects" rather than, " don't be stupid, it is what we are told."
My observation of stuff starting like this, is, people tend to question stuff and do not overly dismiss anything. Obviously you get the few who do, yet most are open to thought.
The odds would change significantly if I shouted, " well folks, the Earth is flatish and it's covered by a ice dome." That would be met with rolling eyes and a possible walk away talk of, " he's lost the plot, is he in some kind of cult or just going batty."

As for family members, it's basically the same thing. It's a case of "what if." I basically leave things open to discussion and use the 'what if' scenario to see how they think.
As a family member may say to me, " what if there is aliens on the moon and they told us never to go back." My answer is, "maybe - but what if they didn't go at all and just said they went because they don't have the capabilities to go."

What if's keep things sensible and basic without exciting any party into rash attacks or arguments.

As for romantic interests, it's probably best to simply talk about each others interests like music or whatever, rather than discussing theories, whether they are conspiracy or otherwise. If, after a period of time, your interests meet on some of that stuff, then it can be discussed. Until then, just keep it low key.


As for a love interest or even a friend, taking me seriously if I came out with what I do, I would expect nothing other than a giggle or a , " surely you don't believe that stuff, do you?"
I wouldn't expect any other answer.

The truth is, we are all ignorant of facts. We all have our own thoughts in many forms. We all have different ways of discussion of thoughts, face to face.
A forum allows us all to express our thoughts and to TYPE argue them. People can think what they want about them and put those thoughts into TYPE, knowing that a massive disagreement poses no physical harm and should pose no intimidation by anyone tryng to force an issue.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Moosedrool on July 20, 2014, 09:53:51 PM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Goth on July 21, 2014, 07:33:54 AM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!



(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/You+aren+t+even+clever+with+your+insults.+You+re+just+a+_2e04d2729df174afdd21b1822f5e8bf3.jpg)
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 21, 2014, 10:32:38 AM

(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/You+aren+t+even+clever+with+your+insults.+You+re+just+a+_2e04d2729df174afdd21b1822f5e8bf3.jpg)

Goth... please refer to THIS (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61846.0#.U81OIiir2-0) post.

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 21, 2014, 10:43:48 AM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!



(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/You+aren+t+even+clever+with+your+insults.+You+re+just+a+_2e04d2729df174afdd21b1822f5e8bf3.jpg)

Goth, that is considered low content posting.  Please refrain from posting on meme pics without any commentary.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Pongo on July 21, 2014, 12:08:16 PM

(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/You+aren+t+even+clever+with+your+insults.+You+re+just+a+_2e04d2729df174afdd21b1822f5e8bf3.jpg)

Goth... please refer to THIS (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61846.0#.U81OIiir2-0) post.

Better yet, please refer to THIS (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61819.msg1623302#msg1623302) post.

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 21, 2014, 12:53:55 PM
Disclaimer: I'm not a flat earther but I do have some strange beliefs and ideas which the can unsettle the indoctrinated.

With that out of the way, I'm happy for people to believe whatever they want. I don't want to push anything, merely ask questions and see if we can answer those questions. In the flesh, I always try to be friendly and humorous, even with the severely indoctrinated (of which I've met many). I take a slightly perverse pleasure in planting the seeds of doubt. It's surprisingly easy and fun.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 21, 2014, 01:33:15 PM
I take a slightly perverse pleasure in planting the seeds of doubt. It's surprisingly easy and fun.

If it's supposedly "surprisingly easy" and—for you—"fun" then I suggest you attempt to sow your "seeds of doubt" in the minds of the 6,000,000 scientists who accept absolutely the spherical earth model.

You'll be sadly disappointed on both counts.  Sorry.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 21, 2014, 01:42:19 PM
I take a slightly perverse pleasure in planting the seeds of doubt. It's surprisingly easy and fun.

If it's supposedly "surprisingly easy" and—for you—"fun" then I suggest you attempt to sow your "seeds of doubt" in the minds of the 6,000,000 scientists who accept absolutely the spherical earth model.

You'll be sadly disappointed on both counts.  Sorry.

Ah, the strange agent appears, claiming that there are six million 'scientists' (whatever that means) and they all accept the spherical model. I hope a mod will deem his/her/its reply as low content and issue a ban.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 21, 2014, 01:56:31 PM
Ah, the strange agent appears, claiming that there are six million 'scientists' (whatever that means) and they all accept the spherical model.

A mere six days ago, legion posted this comment as a result of one of my own comments:

Quote
As I have no time for confirmed idiots or Agents of the Strange, I'll be ignoring all of his posts from now on.

I knew he wouldn't be able to resist responding to my logical and considered opinions, and the truth of my empirical science LOL.  It just goes to show how much people like this lack the courage of their convictions.

Well done legion.   ;D   You've "ignored" me for 144 hours.

—And as a matter of interest, yes, there are an estimated 6 million accredited scientists in the world who fully accept the spherical earth model.  Unless you'd like to post some statistics of your own that disprove this?  If you can that is.

PS:
  As you seem confused by the term,  "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 21, 2014, 02:05:22 PM
Ah, the strange agent appears, claiming that there are six million 'scientists' (whatever that means) and they all accept the spherical model.

A mere six days ago, legion posted this comment as a result of one of my own comments:

Quote
As I have no time for confirmed idiots or Agents of the Strange, I'll be ignoring all of his posts from now on.

I knew he wouldn't be able to resist responding to my logical and considered opinions, and the truth of my empirical science LOL.  It just goes to show how much people like this lack the courage of their convictions.

Well done legion.   ;D   You've "ignored" me for 144 hours.

—And as a matter of interest, yes, there are an estimated 6 million accredited scientists in the world who fully accept the spherical earth model.  Unless you'd like to post some statistics of your own that disprove this?  If you can that is.

PS:
  As you seem confused by the term,  "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Kindly provide the source for your "all six million 'scientists' accept the spherical earth model" assertion.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 21, 2014, 02:28:19 PM

Kindly provide the source for your "all six million 'scientists' accept the spherical earth model" assertion.

Uh... have you forgotten that you were going to ignore all of my posts as from 15 July?  Just can't resist eh?  LOL

Anyway... that 6 million figure comes from The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington DC.

As you're disputing my "all scientists accept the spherical earth model" claim, would you care to name for me—say—six accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model?


Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 21, 2014, 02:32:08 PM

Kindly provide the source for your "all six million 'scientists' accept the spherical earth model" assertion.

Uh... have you forgotten that you were going to ignore all of my posts as from 15 July?  Just can't resist eh?  LOL

Anyway... that 6 million figure comes from The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington DC.

As you're disputing my "all scientists accept the spherical earth model" claim, would you care to name for me—say—six accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model?

I haven't made any claims about 'scientists' accepting anything. You have. That your number came from the AAAS is not enough. I'd like to see the report so I can determine whether it should be taken seriously.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: tappet on July 21, 2014, 02:38:28 PM

Kindly provide the source for your "all six million 'scientists' accept the spherical earth model" assertion.

Uh... have you forgotten that you were going to ignore all of my posts as from 15 July?  Just can't resist eh?  LOL

Anyway... that 6 million figure comes from The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington DC.

As you're disputing my "all scientists accept the spherical earth model" claim, would you care to name for me—say—six accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model?
Tappet would like to know why The American Association for the Advancement of Science said they had 6 million scientists believing the earth is round. Were they discussing round versus flat earth?
Did they really say this?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: sokarul on July 21, 2014, 05:21:14 PM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!
Can I just tell them they are flat?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: macrohard on July 21, 2014, 05:43:16 PM
Probably would get a similar reaction
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 02:53:53 AM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 22, 2014, 07:46:53 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: sceptimatic on July 23, 2014, 07:36:21 AM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.
So how many sceintists are actually professionally involved with the actual Earth shape and space?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2014, 12:06:46 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.
So how many sceintists are actually professionally involved with the actual Earth shape and space?
4, 395, 212
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: DuckDodgers on July 23, 2014, 12:31:38 PM
The shape of the earth does not consume my life outside of this site.  I rarely discuss it unless one of my friends brings it up, which really happens anymore.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Shmeggley on July 23, 2014, 01:59:02 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.
So how many sceintists are actually professionally involved with the actual Earth shape and space?

I couldn't find an exact number of members, but there seem to be a fair number of them: http://www.iag-aig.org/ (http://www.iag-aig.org/)
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2014, 02:48:48 PM
And of course geologists, geographers, cartographers, physicists and a host of others.

Anyway, I've given a number already.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 25, 2014, 02:55:39 AM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!

I have my Flat Earth Society membership certificate hanging on my bedroom wall.  It has not scared a girl out of my room yet, and I keep my membership card in my wallet just in case the subject comes up at a bar or something. 
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: rottingroom on July 25, 2014, 12:28:37 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

I'm having a hard time finding any real scientists that performed these hoaxes in the links you provided.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!

I have my Flat Earth Society membership certificate hanging on my bedroom wall.  It has not scared a girl out of my room yet, and I keep my membership card in my wallet just in case the subject comes up at a bar or something.

Clearly jroa is relying on a woman to have a sense of humour, so I can see this being an effective way for him to pull.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Socratic Amusement on July 25, 2014, 12:33:28 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 12:39:11 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

I'm having a hard time finding any real scientists that performed these hoaxes in the links you provided.

You weren't trying hard enough. Or you're suffering from confirmation bias (quotes below taken from wikipedia link):

John William Heslop Harrison, FRS[1] (1881–1967), was Professor of Botany at King's College

The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970 in Verden) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.

Haruko Obokata (小保方 晴子 Obokata Haruko?, born June 29, 1983) is a Japanese stem-cell biologist and the Research Unit Leader of the Laboratory for Cellular Reprogramming at RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology

Scott S. Reuben (born 1958) is an American anesthesiologist who was Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts and chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts before being sentenced to prison for healthcare fraud.


Eoörnis pterovelox gobiensis is a fictional bird, a humorous hoax by Lester W. Sharp, professor of botany, Cornell University, United States.


Is that enough, or would you like more...?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: rottingroom on July 25, 2014, 12:40:23 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

I'm having a hard time finding any real scientists that performed these hoaxes in the links you provided.

You weren't trying hard enough. Or you're suffering from confirmation bias (quotes below taken from wikipedia link):

John William Heslop Harrison, FRS[1] (1881–1967), was Professor of Botany at King's College

The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970 in Verden) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.

Haruko Obokata (小保方 晴子 Obokata Haruko?, born June 29, 1983) is a Japanese stem-cell biologist and the Research Unit Leader of the Laboratory for Cellular Reprogramming at RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology

Scott S. Reuben (born 1958) is an American anesthesiologist who was Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts and chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts before being sentenced to prison for healthcare fraud.


Eoörnis pterovelox gobiensis is a fictional bird, a humorous hoax by Lester W. Sharp, professor of botany, Cornell University, United States.


Is that enough, or would you like more...?

So, when those guys were doing these hoaxes and not adhering to the scientific method, they were being scientists?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 12:42:12 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 12:42:27 PM
Actually, even professional scientists can do things that are unethical. There can be scientists that are just not good at their job. They are human after all. But pointing at hoaxes and bad science as evidence that the whole field is corrupt, or that they are all wrong or mostly wrong, isn't reasonable. Fraud exists in probably any profession you could name. There are crooked mechanics and plumbers out there. Does that mean that nobody really knows how to unplug a drain or fix an engine? Or that the majority of plumbers are untrustworthy?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: rottingroom on July 25, 2014, 12:44:17 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because they are involved in a hoax?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
Actually, even professional scientists can do things that are unethical. There can be scientists that are just not good at their job. They are human after all. But pointing at hoaxes and bad science as evidence that the whole field is corrupt, or that they are all wrong or mostly wrong, isn't reasonable. Fraud exists in probably any profession you could name. There are crooked mechanics and plumbers out there. Does that mean that nobody really knows how to unplug a drain or fix an engine? Or that the majority of plumbers are untrustworthy?

I was proving that ausgeoff was wrong when he claimed that "all scientists use the scientific method." They clearly do not.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 12:45:25 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 12:50:35 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: inquisitive on July 25, 2014, 12:59:29 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.
Who says all scientists at all times?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: rottingroom on July 25, 2014, 01:00:41 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.

I think it is fine to respect and consider to be the best way to understand the world. What's worrisome is the worship of scientists. Not science in and of itself.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Socratic Amusement on July 25, 2014, 01:08:45 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: tappet on July 25, 2014, 01:28:38 PM


The worship of 'science' is worrying.
Yes this worshiping of science is ridiculous. Put up on a pedestal, wearing a white coat, over inflated ego and half of them paid good money to study drivel. Its just a job, like everybody else has, just a job.
Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 01:34:48 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Socratic Amusement on July 25, 2014, 01:44:19 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.

It does, actually. Because there is no time frame for disapproval during the peer review process. Indeed, Aristotelian physics were held as true for a very long time. But the scientific method proved that school of thought to be invalid. They didn't take it on faith, and trust centuries old convention.

Hell, we have thousands of people around the world, every single day, trying to disprove even the most common and accepted scientific theories.

And yet, they still hold up.

While entirely possible that our current understanding of theories will be refined in the years to come, the chances of a hoax having slipped through for any length of time is so astonishingly small as to in practice be nonexistent.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 02:35:20 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.

It does, actually. Because there is no time frame for disapproval during the peer review process. Indeed, Aristotelian physics were held as true for a very long time. But the scientific method proved that school of thought to be invalid. They didn't take it on faith, and trust centuries old convention.

Hell, we have thousands of people around the world, every single day, trying to disprove even the most common and accepted scientific theories.

And yet, they still hold up.

While entirely possible that our current understanding of theories will be refined in the years to come, the chances of a hoax having slipped through for any length of time is so astonishingly small as to in practice be nonexistent.

Nothing but theories. A 'scientist' can spend his entire life investigating a convoluted theory.

What you guys get muddled up on is the difference between science and technology. Technology can increase the processing power in your phone. Or the battery life. Applied scientists are of use. Theoretical scientists are not.

Your obvious mistake is to lump all 'scientists' together.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Socratic Amusement on July 25, 2014, 02:38:20 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.

It does, actually. Because there is no time frame for disapproval during the peer review process. Indeed, Aristotelian physics were held as true for a very long time. But the scientific method proved that school of thought to be invalid. They didn't take it on faith, and trust centuries old convention.

Hell, we have thousands of people around the world, every single day, trying to disprove even the most common and accepted scientific theories.

And yet, they still hold up.

While entirely possible that our current understanding of theories will be refined in the years to come, the chances of a hoax having slipped through for any length of time is so astonishingly small as to in practice be nonexistent.

Nothing but theories. A 'scientist' can spend his entire life investigating a convoluted theory.

What you guys get muddled up on is the difference between science and technology. Technology can increase the processing power in your phone. Or the battery life. Applied scientists are of use. Theoretical scientists are not.

Your obvious mistake is to lump all 'scientists' together.

The scientific method is the scientific method.

Unless you can show a flaw in the conclusion or methodology, which is what the method wants you to do keep in mind, your protestations are hollow and pointless.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science)
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/ (http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg)

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.

I'd be wary of anyone who said "people from group X can be trusted at all times" while "worshipping" them. However the behaviour of some people towards group X has nothing to do with whether the conclusions of group X are correct or not.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 02:41:42 PM

I was proving that ausGeoff was wrong when he claimed that "all scientists use the scientific method." They clearly do not.

Sorry legion, but you weren't "proving me wrong"  LOL.  You just don't get it do you?

Your task—as a flat earther—is to produce empirical evidence that supports your belief that the planet is some sort of flat, planar shape.  The scientific status quo is that it's spherical.

Therefore there's really no point in you citing half a dozen "scientists" who've perpetrated or been the inadvertent victims of hoaxes.  In the overall scheme of things that these forums are all about—a purportedly flat earth—that sort of stuff is totally immaterial.  Rather than trying to denigrate the scientists who've produced unequivocal evidence for the proof of a spherical earth, and denouncing the sciences that support this position, you need to provide empirical evidence of your own to prove your claim of a flat earth.

One doesn't win a debate—any debate—by demonising the evidence of their opponent;  one has to provide their own sound evidence to succeed at a debate.

Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

The other point you obviously don't understand is that every one of these admitted scientific frauds, delusions, or deliberate misrepresentations have been exposed AND corrected by a plethora other scientists.

So—for the benefit of the flat earth pedants here—I'll rephrase my claim to read "All legitimate scientists use the scientific method".

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 02:45:29 PM

I was proving that ausGeoff was wrong when he claimed that "all scientists use the scientific method." They clearly do not.

Sorry legion, but you weren't "proving me wrong"  LOL.  You just don't get it do you?

Your task—as a flat earther—is to produce empirical evidence that supports your belief that the planet is some sort of flat, planar shape.  The scientific status quo is that it's spherical.

Therefore there's really no point in you citing half a dozen "scientists" who've perpetrated or been the inadvertent victims of hoaxes.  In the overall scheme of things that these forums are all about—a purportedly flat earth—that sort of stuff is totally immaterial.  Rather than trying to denigrate the scientists who've produced unequivocal evidence for the proof of a spherical earth, and denouncing the sciences that support this position, you need to provide empirical evidence of your own to prove your claim of a flat earth.

One doesn't win a debate—any debate—by demonising the evidence of their opponent;  one has to provide their own sound evidence to succeed at a debate.

Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

The other point you obviously don't understand is that every one of these admitted scientific frauds, delusions, or deliberate misrepresentations have been exposed AND corrected by a plethora other scientists.

So—for the benefit of the flat earth pedants here—I'll rephrase my claim to read "All legitimate scientists use the scientific method".

Amongst all your waffle, the one question I have is:

How does one determine what a legitimate scientist is?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 02:48:08 PM
Geoffrey: you blundered into this thread claiming, and I quote: "all scientists use the scientific method". Just admit that you were wrong and not all do, and the thread can continue on track.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 02:53:16 PM

Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,

Uh... Ancel Keys wasn't a "fraud" as you put it.  He was a well-respected food research scientist.  Again, you've been sucked in by some paranoid alties into believing their bizarre but unfounded claims.  You really need to carry out some of your own research before simply parroting stuff wholesale from CAM sites (as you've obviously done here).

And to be totally transparent with your claim of fraud, you need to cite references to the numbers of people that you allege have "suffered" because of Keys.

So...?

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 02:55:56 PM

Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,

Uh... Ancel Keys wasn't a "fraud" as you put it.  He was a well-respected food research scientist.  Again, you've been sucked in by some paranoid alties into believing their bizarre but unfounded claims.  You really need to carry out some of your own research before simply parroting stuff wholesale from CAM sites (as you've obviously done here).

And to be totally transparent with your claim of fraud, you need to cite references to the numbers of people that you allege have "suffered" because of Keys.

So...?

As usual, you demand references for views you disagree with but fail to provide any for those that you believe in.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 02:58:25 PM
Geoffrey: you blundered into this thread claiming, and I quote: "all scientists use the scientific method". Just admit that you were wrong and not all do, and the thread can continue on track.

I note that you haven't yet addressed my comment re:  "Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid."

Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?  So far, no flat earther has been able to comply with that simple task.

—Can you?

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 03:02:05 PM
Geoffrey: you blundered into this thread claiming, and I quote: "all scientists use the scientific method". Just admit that you were wrong and not all do, and the thread can continue on track.

I note that you haven't yet addressed my comment re:  "Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid."

Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?  So far, no flat earther has been able to comply with that simple task.

—Can you?

Geoffy, you have failed to name the six 'scientists' who believe in the flat earth model and have also failed to provide any evidence that six million (I assume mainstream) 'scientists' believe in the spherical earth.

Stop calling everyone who points out that you are a fool a flat earther, and back up your claims.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 03:03:28 PM

Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,

Uh... Ancel Keys wasn't a "fraud" as you put it.  He was a well-respected food research scientist.  Again, you've been sucked in by some paranoid alties into believing their bizarre but unfounded claims.  You really need to carry out some of your own research before simply parroting stuff wholesale from CAM sites (as you've obviously done here).



And to be totally transparent with your claim of fraud, you need to cite references to the numbers of people that you allege have "suffered" because of Keys.

So...?

As usual you demand references for views you disagree with but fail to provide any for those that you believe in.

No problem legion.  Here's one of my reference sources for Ancel Keys:  The Truth About Ancel Keys: We’ve All Got It Wrong (http://bit.ly/1rS7Nxf).

Can you now cite a reference to your claim that I've got Ancel Keys' works/theories wrong, or that he was a "fraud"?

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 03:07:34 PM

Stop calling everyone who points out that you are a fool a flat earther, and back up your claims.

Can you please confirm that you're a genuine "round earther"?

I also note that you've chosen not to—as have ALL flat earthers so far—address this question:

"Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?"

So... can you name names?  Yes or no.  Simple question.  Simple answer please.

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: legion on July 25, 2014, 03:28:57 PM

Stop calling everyone who points out that you are a fool a flat earther, and back up your claims.

Can you please confirm that you're a genuine "round earther"?

I also note that you've chosen not to—as have ALL flat earthers so far—address this question:

"Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?"

So... can you name names?  Yes or no.  Simple question.  Simple answer please.

Why does is matter if I'm a "round earther"? You have been asked time and again to substantiate your claim that "six million scientists believe in the round earth model".

You seem to be one of those people who finds comfort in believing what everyone else does. Even going so far as to make up statistics. Maybe you would be better off joining a church.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: rottingroom on July 25, 2014, 03:33:15 PM
I'd be interested to know as well legion. You've implied that you are not a flat earther, but you talk so much like one. What's wrong with just answering the question?
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 06:20:10 PM
I'd be interested to know as well legion. You've implied that you are not a flat earther, but you talk so much like one. What's wrong with just answering the question?

So... firstly legion won't divulge to us whether or not he's a flat earther, or a round earther.  The only option left is that he's a troll.

He also refuses to name even half a dozen flat earth scientists.  Why is this?  Because he can't LOL.

—The guy is full of it.

Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: tappet on July 25, 2014, 11:05:36 PM

No problem legion.  Here's one of my reference sources for Ancel Keys:  The Truth About Ancel Keys: We’ve All Got It Wrong (http://bit.ly/1rS7Nxf).

Can you now cite a reference to your claim that I've got Ancel Keys' works/theories wrong, or that he was a "fraud"?
Nice link Geoff. lol
You have linked us to a site that is promoting ruminants
Seriously you can not expect me to read drivel that promotes eating raw vegetation. No wonder they are defending the fraud Keys. lol
People are waking up to the lies Geoff. lol
Have a look at your Time Magazine its full of science. lol
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/time-magazine-we-were-wrong-about-saturated-fats/ (http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/time-magazine-we-were-wrong-about-saturated-fats/)
The link you have posted is dated 2011 please keep up Geoff.
I vaguely remember Denise Minger from the link you posted destroyed a few years back "The China Study" done by another scientific fraud, Cambell. lol
Then after you have ditched the fat and upped the sugar you can use some more bogus science aka The Friedwald Formula,
To mathematically calculate ldl cholesterol with your raised trigs to then be handed some Lipitor.
Gotta love science.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: tappet on July 26, 2014, 12:09:21 AM


  Here's one of my reference sources for Ancel Keys:  The Truth About Ancel Keys: We’ve All Got It Wrong (http://bit.ly/1rS7Nxf).
By the way , check out your reference sources [Denise Minger] qualifications.
Now that's a "LOL" if ever I have seen one.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: inquisitive on July 26, 2014, 12:53:45 AM
Please FE's! tell chicks straight that you think the world is flat. It'll cause laughing then she will see you're serious and eventually realize how stupid you are. She'll leave and no intercourse will be performed.

I cannot bare the idea of any of you reproducing!

I have my Flat Earth Society membership certificate hanging on my bedroom wall.  It has not scared a girl out of my room yet, and I keep my membership card in my wallet just in case the subject comes up at a bar or something.
'out of my room'. I guess you are about 17.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: guv on July 26, 2014, 03:11:24 AM
17? I recon about 45.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: ausGeoff on July 26, 2014, 03:34:11 AM
By the way , check out your reference sources [Denise Minger] qualifications.
Now that's a "LOL" if ever I have seen one.

Thus is actually quite funny in its own way.

Someone who seriously believes the planet is flat accusing me of posting dodgy references.

Thanks for the laugh tappet, but you'll have to try a lot harder than that my friend.  Sorry.
Title: Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 04:36:22 AM
By the way , check out your reference sources [Denise Minger] qualifications.
Now that's a "LOL" if ever I have seen one.

Thus is actually quite funny in its own way.

Someone who seriously believes the planet is flat accusing me of posting dodgy references.

Thanks for the laugh tappet, but you'll have to try a lot harder than that my friend.  Sorry.

Genetic fallacy AusGeoff.