The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 07:22:38 AM

Title: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 07:22:38 AM
Can flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using Occam's Razor when arguing their ideas? It is not only old, it is ridiculous to use such an argument when your "theories" rely on the most intricate and long lasting conspiracy cover ups imaginable. The hundreds of thousands of photos from space are assumed to be fake. NASA is assumed to be covering up the real shape of the Earth. Satellites are assumed to not exist. All the governments throughout all the ages are "assumed" to be in on it and so on. Hardly the least amount of assumptions. In fact, the conspiracy aspect of these "theories" make them have the most amount of assumptions needed to survive. So please, stop with Occam's Razor.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: mrparty on April 07, 2015, 07:48:22 AM
The entire flat and dual earth "theories" are assumed. The only evidence the give are just more assumptions. All the while they try to refute concrete evidence of a round earth.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 07:51:34 AM
Exactly why their use of Occam's Razor to argue their ideas is ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: mikeman7918 on April 07, 2015, 08:22:14 AM
I have been trying to tell flat earthers this for a while.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 07, 2015, 11:53:05 PM
Read their wiki page on the subject.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams%20Razor (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams%20Razor)
I love the way its used to argue gravity.  If they walk off their chair and fall to the ground, would it be an undiscovered graviton particle or would it be easier to say the earth rushed up to meet your face.
So they can take the most minute theorized only part of a fundamental force and compare it to an effect. 
The occams razor argument should have been this.

So I fall from a chair,
What is the most simple answer?  Which answer has the least assumptions?

That mass attracts mass, and the Earth has a gravitational force attracting me to its surface.  Being a fundamental force, we do not know what quantum field may cause gravity.  Many scientist have tested and verified its effects, and the math can predict celestial bodies movements through the sky. 
Or
The Earth is accelerating upwards, possibly being pushed by an unknown force/energy/matter.  Being a totally assumed thing with no mathematical data that cannot be attributed to gravitational effects, and possibly no mass yet it imparts force, hasn't been observed at all, and was thought up just to replace gravity since the world looks flat from my living room window.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: DonaldC on April 08, 2015, 12:50:23 AM
Occam's Razor is a useful idea that is often misunderstood. It is not a rule. It really only applies to a situation wherein two competing theories are equally good at both explaining a phenomena and making predictions. When this is the case, then the simpler theory is to be preferred. If a theory explains a phenomena better and makes better predictions than a competing theory then it wins regardless of how much more complex it is. Period, end of game.

As far as what constitutes the success of a theory see what Feynman says about it.

Richard Feynman: In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: sceptimatic on April 08, 2015, 06:38:30 AM
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 08, 2015, 06:44:20 AM
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: sceptimatic on April 08, 2015, 07:09:54 AM
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.
Occam's razor does work overall. It may not be a fool proof assumption but it does reduce the odds massively by logical thought on it's working's.

It has nothing to do with 6 plus billion people. That is not occam's razor in action. 6 plus billion people can waddle along on blind faith without the use of Occam's razor, as long as their minds are saturated enough, for long enough to make their minds accept nonsense as a logical cause and effect for whatever was schooled into them.

Occam's razor work's as simple as this.

If you push a boat over a continuous curve of water, you can expect that boat to eventually fall down a water fall. We can assume this because we know that water cannot curve continuously to allow a boat to sail around it. It's basic common sense and seen in everyday life.

So now we can assume that if we push a boat around a body of water to not only stay on that body of water but to also sail back to the start - it's fair to assume that we have sailed around a water filled bowl of some description that holds the water in, all around, as a flat body of liquid, allowing us to sail upright.

Ther easiest and most logical answer is there. If you think the first answer is wrong then you have to abandon occam's razor to add in some force that negates logical thought. Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 08, 2015, 08:23:03 AM
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.
Occam's razor does work overall. It may not be a fool proof assumption but it does reduce the odds massively by logical thought on it's working's.

It has nothing to do with 6 plus billion people. That is not occam's razor in action. 6 plus billion people can waddle along on blind faith without the use of Occam's razor, as long as their minds are saturated enough, for long enough to make their minds accept nonsense as a logical cause and effect for whatever was schooled into them.

Occam's razor work's as simple as this.

If you push a boat over a continuous curve of water, you can expect that boat to eventually fall down a water fall. We can assume this because we know that water cannot curve continuously to allow a boat to sail around it. It's basic common sense and seen in everyday life.

So now we can assume that if we push a boat around a body of water to not only stay on that body of water but to also sail back to the start - it's fair to assume that we have sailed around a water filled bowl of some description that holds the water in, all around, as a flat body of liquid, allowing us to sail upright.

Ther easiest and most logical answer is there. If you think the first answer is wrong then you have to abandon occam's razor to add in some force that negates logical thought. Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.

FET and DET both require a conspiracy for their theory to hold up. This conspiracy is ridiculously intricate and is an assumption itself composed of multiple assumptions. Round Earth theory requires no such sillyness therefore RET wins.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 08:41:54 AM
Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.

Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?
If something is reached as a result of an experiment, it is by definition not an assumption. Originally I'm fairly sure 'gravity' was just used a placehodler term for whatever keeps things on the surface of the Earth: it has since been improved by observation where, for example, Henry Cavendish demonstrated mass attracts mass. This was then used to explain gravity (and now, to define gravity), rather than appealing to some other, unknown explanation.

Using your proposed denpressure, which still fails to explain why horizontal motion is any more possible than vertical, you'll find a number of assumptions there. You state air molecules have a specific structure, you say we live in a dome, etc: do you have evidence, or are those assumptions?
If you have evidence, we'd all love to hear it. Otherwise, what makes your assumptions more palatable than gravity, even if gravity was assumption alone?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 08, 2015, 12:29:36 PM
Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?

Have you heard of the Tamarack Mines experiments? 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?

Have you heard of the Tamarack Mines experiments?

A badly recorded, non-repeatable near-urban-legend? How does that compare?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 08, 2015, 12:46:13 PM
Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?

Have you heard of the Tamarack Mines experiments?

A badly recorded, non-repeatable near-urban-legend? How does that compare?

I could say the same about the Cavendish Experiment. 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 12:48:15 PM
A badly recorded, non-repeatable near-urban-legend? How does that compare?

I could say the same about the Cavendish Experiment.

You can, but you'd be wrong. Care to say how either of the two adjectives I used apply to Cavendish? It's well-recorded, and has been repeated in various ways.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 12:48:59 PM
Following Newton's new law of universal gravitation an experiment was devised to measure the faint gravitational attraction between two lead balls, the Cavendish experiment. This was to create a method of 'weighing the world'. The mass of the Sun could then be calculated from the value of the mass of the Earth. The mass of any star could then be measured by comparing it to the mass of the Sun. But there was an initial illogical assumption made; that the nature of the matter comprising the entirety of the Earth is the same as that of the lead balls. Because of this illogical assumption, the Cavendish experiment is absolute rubbish and can logically be thrown out of any scientific debate.

BiJane, please do not reference the Cavendish experiment again or there will be consequences.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 12:54:40 PM
that the nature of the matter comprising the entirety of the Earth is the same as that of the lead balls. Because of this illogical assumption...

Don't make me use the image again.
Evidence?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 01:40:56 PM
Look at the damn Wikipedia article for the experiment, BiBitch. Stop being obtuse on purpose.  Lead balls were used. The fact that you don't know this just goes to show that you do not know anything about the experiment that you've cited. Looks like you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 01:43:26 PM
Look at the damn Wikipedia article for the experiment, BiBitch. Stop being obtuse on purpose.  Lead balls were used.

When did I say they weren't?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 01:44:30 PM
Look at the damn Wikipedia article for the experiment, BiBitch. Stop being obtuse on purpose.  Lead balls were used.

When did I say they weren't?

Do you understand implications or are you too austitic for that?

If you are asking for a citation about lead balls, then you don't understand the experiment. Period.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 01:46:37 PM
Do you understand implications or are you too austitic for that?
Would you care to share how I implied it, then?

Quote
If you are asking for a citation about lead balls, then you don't understand the experiment. Period.

I'm not, I'm asking why you expect matter to have unique properties when it 0amkes up the Earth. Or is it lead that has the unique property of exerting gravity?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 01:51:12 PM
Do you understand implications or are you too austitic for that?
Would you care to share how I implied it, then?

Quote
If you are asking for a citation about lead balls, then you don't understand the experiment. Period.

I'm not, I'm asking why you expect matter to have unique properties when it 0amkes up the Earth. Or is it lead that has the unique property of exerting gravity?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that you apparently think that the Earth's 'core' is composed of lead.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 01:52:06 PM
you apparently think that the Earth's 'core' is composed of lead.

You asked for it.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 01:53:40 PM
Reported.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on April 08, 2015, 02:15:57 PM

BiJane, please do not reference the Cavendish experiment again or there will be consequences.

Pongo accepts the Cavendish experiment results as valid. Toe the line, blighter.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:16:49 PM

BiJane, please do not reference the Cavendish experiment again or there will be consequences.

Pongo accepts the Cavendish experiment results as valid. Toe the line, blighter.

I don't give a shit about what Pongo thinks. The Cavendish Experiment was based on a false premise.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:18:10 PM
The Cavendish Experiment was based on a false premise.

Still waiting for why.
If you're going to put words in my mouth again, please explain why you think I said those things.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
The Cavendish Experiment was based on a false premise.

Still waiting for why.
If you're going to put words in my mouth again, please explain why you think I said those things.

Uhhh, the Earth isn't made of lead? Do I have to explain this even further for you?

Or do you think the Earth is made of lead?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:30:16 PM
Uhhh, the Earth isn't made of lead? Do I have to explain this even further for you?

Or do you think the Earth is made of lead?

Nope.
Are you saying gravity exists exclusively for lead?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Misero on April 08, 2015, 02:31:17 PM
He's thinking that they forgot to not make the results based off everything being lead.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:37:21 PM
Uhhh, the Earth isn't made of lead? Do I have to explain this even further for you?

Or do you think the Earth is made of lead?

Nope.
Are you saying gravity exists exclusively for lead?

Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:40:06 PM
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:41:10 PM
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

Ohhh wooowww. You're so clever, BiJane. You kinda said what I said but changed some of the words. So smart!!!



 ::)
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:41:56 PM
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

Ohhh wooowww. You're so clever, BiJane. You kinda said what I said but changed some of the words. So smart!!!



 ::)

Still waiting for evidence. Is any coming up, or should I get back to my book?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:42:45 PM
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

Ohhh wooowww. You're so clever, BiJane. You kinda said what I said but changed some of the words. So smart!!!



 ::)

Still waiting for evidence. Is any coming up, or should I get back to my book?

Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:43:52 PM
Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.

For why you're saying only lead is capable of exerting gravity.

Book it is then.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Misero on April 08, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.

For why you're saying only lead is capable of exerting gravity.

Book it is then.
He's thinking that they forgot to not make the results based off everything being lead.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:47:51 PM
He's thinking that they forgot to not make the results based off everything being lead.

I know, just figuring out why that's relevant, unless (as it seems) he's saying only lead exerts gravity. Either way, he still needs to offer some reason for that to be relevant.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:51:06 PM
Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.

For why you're saying only lead is capable of exerting gravity.

Book it is then.

Please explain where I said that, BiJane.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:52:21 PM
Please explain where I said that, BiJane.

If you did not, please explain why it matters the balls were made of lead? Why does that mean the world cannot exert a gravitational pull?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:52:39 PM
Please explain where I said that, BiJane.

If you did not, please explain why it matters the balls were made of lead? Why does that mean the world cannot exert a gravitational pull?

Lead is not Earth. Try to keep up.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:54:26 PM
Lead is not Earth. Try to keep up.

Mm-hmm. So you are saying lead exerts gravity, but other materials do not.
Try to keep up.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 02:55:48 PM
Lead is not Earth. Try to keep up.

Mm-hmm. So you are saying lead exerts gravity, but other materials do not.
Try to keep up.

Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 02:58:19 PM
Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

Ahh, evasion. How about you consider committing for once?
I've got a lovely story about life in the 60s to get back to, so if you're not going to commit to some story or another (and I mean explicitly, not just a handwave and insult), I'm just going to read my book.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Vauxhall on April 08, 2015, 03:01:19 PM
Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

Ahh, evasion. How about you consider committing for once?
I've got a lovely story about life in the 60s to get back to, so if you're not going to commit to some story or another (and I mean explicitly, not just a handwave and insult), I'm just going to read my book.

Go read your book then. I've made my point quite clear and concise. It's you who's doing the evasion by purposely misunderstanding my posts.

Have a nice read.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Slemon on April 08, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
not just a handwave and insult)
I've made my point quite clear and concise. It's you who's doing the evasion by purposely misunderstanding my posts.

Mm, thought so.
Bye!
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 08, 2015, 03:55:51 PM
Watch the personal attacks.  This is the upper fora. 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 08, 2015, 06:58:14 PM
Well jroa, what can we argue about then, since they got out of hand.  I say you should roll the toothpaste tube from the bottom.  I think you are a squeeze from the middle type of person, and for that... I throw my toothpaste covered gauntlet down 

your turn.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: The Ellimist on April 08, 2015, 07:10:41 PM
Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

Ahh, evasion. How about you consider committing for once?
I've got a lovely story about life in the 60s to get back to, so if you're not going to commit to some story or another (and I mean explicitly, not just a handwave and insult), I'm just going to read my book.

Go read your book then. I've made my point quite clear and concise. It's you who's doing the evasion by purposely misunderstanding my posts.

Have a nice read.

Why does it matter that the balls were made of lead?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 08, 2015, 07:34:12 PM
I'm not sure, but you better not be one of those squeeze from the middle toothpaste people, because I would lose respect for you.


BTW  yes its silly.  I am trying to make a point as to why the silly back and forth name calling, strawman arguments, and other crap of this nature is not helpful in any way.

I still think you are crazy to squeeze the toothpaste from the middle jroa.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 08, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
Have you still not read up on the Tamarack Mines Experiments? 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 08, 2015, 08:40:18 PM
yep
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)

http://blogs.mtu.edu/physics/2000/01/mtu-physics-department-history-1901-1916/ (http://blogs.mtu.edu/physics/2000/01/mtu-physics-department-history-1901-1916/)

https://books.google.com/books?id=X1E0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA853&lpg=PA853&dq=Tamarack+Mines+experiments&source=bl&ots=MsOxuFjyyu&sig=tTjJ4gFQdwnRCgjfcCneZUiirsM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nP4lVcO4BsjXsAWR0oHgDA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Tamarack%20Mines%20experiments&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=X1E0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA853&lpg=PA853&dq=Tamarack+Mines+experiments&source=bl&ots=MsOxuFjyyu&sig=tTjJ4gFQdwnRCgjfcCneZUiirsM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nP4lVcO4BsjXsAWR0oHgDA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Tamarack%20Mines%20experiments&f=false)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1629224?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1629224?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents)

Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 08, 2015, 09:37:22 PM
Way too many changing possible outside variables(air currents), differing results, etc.  for me to take too seriously.  Most of the time they were diverged, but many times they converged, and many times they were basically parallel.  Everyone rushed to theories as to why and there were a hell of a lot of them.  Another thing I noticed was that the distances between the lines were directly measured while the bobs were not. 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 09, 2015, 01:54:31 AM
The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: FalseProphet on April 09, 2015, 06:07:19 AM
Occam's Razor is a useful idea that is often misunderstood. It is not a rule. It really only applies to a situation wherein two competing theories are equally good at both explaining a phenomena and making predictions. When this is the case, then the simpler theory is to be preferred. If a theory explains a phenomena better and makes better predictions than a competing theory then it wins regardless of how much more complex it is. Period, end of game.

Thank you! The Occam's Razor argument is often overemphasized.

In its original context it was a theological argument. "God is good", so he didn't make the world more complicated than it has to be, for he want us to understand his creation.

In the secular context Occam's Razor is really no more than a good advice, that holds in most cases.

FEers actually should have a kind of Gnostic theology, that is, the world was created by a (imperfect) godhead who does NOT want us to understand his creation, for he has something to hide (that he is imperfect or whatever). So he created a flat earth, but in a way that it seems to be round. By the way I would regard that as a possible  theological position.

The secularized version of that is the Great Conspiracy, which is much less likely, because it actually needs actors who are almost allmighty to be carried out.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 09, 2015, 03:49:52 PM
The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 
First, i am not a physicist.  I saw where it said in a couple of the articles about it that the only direct measurement was at the top of the mine and the bottom was not directly measured.  bobs or lines at the bottom of the mine.  I am not stating this to be fact, as it doesn't go into detail about how they actually measured the distance between the bobs, sorry the bottom two ends, at the bottom of the shaft.  I do see lots of things like air currents sometimes the measurements were not diverged, sometimes they were converged, and sometimes essentially parallel.  The majority of the measurements were however diverged. 
Now I said I was not a physicist, but I am an engineer and I have performed many experiments.  If the results from those experiments vary by much at all, you must recheck your experiment setup.  Which they did and did not find one but many possible variables for the discrepancies.  They also were not able to place control mechanisms to counteract all the variables that could be causing the errors.   For anyone who does experiments, if the results continuously change by a wide enough margin (actually very very small margin for error before its too wide to accept the results) the results are not accepted. 
If I am designing a circuit that I wanted to test to see if I could use multiple NOT gates to give a random answer and during testing i keep getting patterns, I would recheck my circuit for anomalies.  If I cannot find any physical anomalies and I find that the temperature or humidity of the room may be the cause the errors, I would try to insulate the circuit from the contributing factors(control measures), If I could not i would have to redesign the entire circuit or abandon it.  Now this isn't exactly the same thing but the same practices are used to ensure accuracy.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 09, 2015, 04:09:28 PM
The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 
First, i am not a physicist.  I saw where it said in a couple of the articles about it that the only direct measurement was at the top of the mine and the bottom was not directly measured.  bobs or lines at the bottom of the mine.  I am not stating this to be fact, as it doesn't go into detail about how they actually measured the distance between the bobs, sorry the bottom two ends, at the bottom of the shaft.  I do see lots of things like air currents sometimes the measurements were not diverged, sometimes they were converged, and sometimes essentially parallel.  The majority of the measurements were however diverged. 
Now I said I was not a physicist, but I am an engineer and I have performed many experiments.  If the results from those experiments vary by much at all, you must recheck your experiment setup.  Which they did and did not find one but many possible variables for the discrepancies.  They also were not able to place control mechanisms to counteract all the variables that could be causing the errors.   For anyone who does experiments, if the results continuously change by a wide enough margin (actually very very small margin for error before its too wide to accept the results) the results are not accepted. 
If I am designing a circuit that I wanted to test to see if I could use multiple NOT gates to give a random answer and during testing i keep getting patterns, I would recheck my circuit for anomalies.  If I cannot find any physical anomalies and I find that the temperature or humidity of the room may be the cause the errors, I would try to insulate the circuit from the contributing factors(control measures), If I could not i would have to redesign the entire circuit or abandon it.  Now this isn't exactly the same thing but the same practices are used to ensure accuracy.

What are the ideal control measures or conditions to test a circuit? I also wonder if this might be possible to achieve for the Tamarack mines experiment. Perhaps it would be possible to reproduce the experiment in a more controlled environment where more accurate and consistent results could be obtained.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 09, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
Well, there are truly no ideal conditions, but if you had access to a climate controlled lab with vacuum chambers, and dust controls (clean room) much like the labs they use to develop semiconductor chips.  With that you would probably be as close to ideal for environmental conditions as humanly possible.  But you want to test circuits in the environment that they will be used.  This is one of the ways circuit design and testing is different than physics experimentation.
As for the Tamarack Mines, it would be very difficult, even with today's technology, to implement control measures. 
I guess if we could theoretically make a large tube that could be set vertically and be miles long, but strong enough to withstand a virtual vacuum on the inside of it, and a way to accurately measure the difference in distance between the top and bottom.  Also you would have to take the rotation of the Earth into account.  Now i know many people here do not believe in this though.  I would have to think about it a bit more to see if the same experiment could be used to prove or disprove the rotation.  I mean if it can cause an effect on the experiment, then you could use the experiment to prove it.  The length of the tube would have to be pretty long to have enough divergence to accurately measure, which would increase the effects of the rotation on it too.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 09, 2015, 04:59:49 PM
Well, there are truly no ideal conditions, but if you had access to a climate controlled lab with vacuum chambers, and dust controls (clean room) much like the labs they use to develop semiconductor chips.  With that you would probably be as close to ideal for environmental conditions as humanly possible.  But you want to test circuits in the environment that they will be used.  This is one of the ways circuit design and testing is different than physics experimentation.
As for the Tamarack Mines, it would be very difficult, even with today's technology, to implement control measures. 
I guess if we could theoretically make a large tube that could be set vertically and be miles long, but strong enough to withstand a virtual vacuum on the inside of it, and a way to accurately measure the difference in distance between the top and bottom.  Also you would have to take the rotation of the Earth into account.  Now i know many people here do not believe in this though.  I would have to think about it a bit more to see if the same experiment could be used to prove or disprove the rotation.  I mean if it can cause an effect on the experiment, then you could use the experiment to prove it.  The length of the tube would have to be pretty long to have enough divergence to accurately measure, which would increase the effects of the rotation on it too.

So if those experimenting on a new controlled Tamarack mines experiment adjusted their results by taking into account the rotation of the Earth it would quickly be dismissed by flat earthers. Seems like a win-win situation for the flat earthers to me.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 09, 2015, 05:25:34 PM
This is of course true, but the expense would be more than anyone with the funds would want to fund, since the current accepted model is a spherical Earth and gravity.  So by that thinking, nothing to prove.  The flat Earth community is actually quite small and they would have trouble gathering the finances to do the experiment also, so if there was a chance that it would disprove their ideas, they wouldn't want to put money into it either.  So you are at a standoff position there, with neither side willing to finance something that either would not provide any new data or would disprove a weak argument. 
This is one of the difficulties flat Earth proponents face with what they are trying to do.  99% of the rest of the population feel that they are wrong, therefore they will not get the backing necessary to gather the data necessary to prove anything.  They aren't being held to higher standards as such, just a steep cliff they have to climb with all sorts of things being thrown at them to knock them back down.  Plus they do rely very heavily on something that is preposterous to most people, being the worldwide conspiracy.  I am not saying there haven't been conspiracies in the past, but the larger the secret, the more people have to be in on it, and the more people in on it means the more possibilities that someone will talk.  Humans by nature are social creatures and are rather naively think that if they tell their friends or family something it will stay quiet.  Also how hard would it be to keep this big secret when you add in human pride.  This is why many serial killers are caught, they want to tell someone, to brag about it, the secret being something of power that they hold over someone who doesn't know.  If you have power you want others to know about it or you really don't have power over them. 
I'm not saying everyone that could be in on the conspiracy are serial killers either.  (for you jroa).
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: DonaldC on April 15, 2015, 12:25:32 AM
Wading in after several days away. Occam's Razor was the topic right?   ;) 

The Tamarak experiment vs a ton of other evidence. Well let us apply the razor shall we? The Tamarak has been shown to have troubles in many ways. And on the other side at this point thousands of experiments that confirm gravity and a basically spherical, spinning Earth. Guess which OR suggests is the winner?

Vauxhall, last I checked Earth contains lead, so it is indeed made of lead. Definitely not exclusively, nor even in majority. But it is not devoid of the stuff.

The Cavendish experiment has been replicated with other materials, not just lead. The same results occur. The moon orbiting the Earth was Newton's main inspiration for the basic equation F=(G*M*m)/r^2. If you think lead is a problem then fine, the Earth is made up of many different things, all of which have been shown to have MASS and mass is the relevant property here. See the two m's in the equation? Those stand for mass. And we also know what the sun is composed of and those also have mass, therefor there was no illogical assumption made. Now I am sure you will now go on about assumptions of mass or some other tomfoolery. Have at it.

I see that Mikey mentioned he is not a physicist. Well I am. No one will do the Tamarak experiment again, see above. There is no reason for working scientists and engineers to want to. There was a time when the idea of universal gravitation was a new and relatively weak idea. The preponderance of evidence that is now in hand would require some incredible event to occur for engineers and scientists to question it. Because there is a plethora of evidence.

Flat Earth types seem to come in two flavors. Those who are clueless as to how science really functions. It is primarily a set of methods that are used to determine the way nature works and to produce hypotheses and to test those. An experiment is not done once and never replicated, especially one that is relatively easy to replicate and has important value, as the Cavendish one did. Something costing billions might not be replicated. But even at the LHC two different detectors were involved in the search for the Higgs Boson and the discovery of it was only accepted after the results from both detectors (essentially two different experiments) were show to confirm one another. The second flavor of Flat Earthers are the same as a great number of anti-scientific types. Their mantra is, "this is too hard for me to understand therefore it must be incorrect." Well tough. Accept that some people are brighter than you and have worked for years to acquire the knowledge and know how to become scientists and engineers.
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 15, 2015, 12:40:46 AM
Donald C, I hate to break the news to you, but, Occam's Razor is not a popularity contest.  It is not about the most popular or most widely accepted theory being the most likely to be correct.  You are using the Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy to try to bend Occam's Razor to your side.  You would think a physicist would know a thing or two about Occam's Razor. 
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: Mikey T. on April 15, 2015, 07:10:42 AM
argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number").  Also Bandwagon fallacy means that you are saying more people believe it because it is true.  This is not technically what Donald is using.  It is used quite a bit here, but just using a fallacy argument doesn't make it untrue.  Occam's Razor is misused for FET purposes in your faq by comparing basically two different levels of explanation.  If two competing arguments equally explain something, then Occam's Razor is used to take the simplest, least amount of assumptions, etc. argument as possibly the correct one.
I refer you to my earlier comment
Quote
I love the way its used to argue gravity.  If they walk off their chair and fall to the ground, would it be an undiscovered graviton particle or would it be easier to say the earth rushed up to meet your face.
So they can take the most minute theorized only part of a fundamental force and compare it to an effect. 
The occams razor argument should have been this.

So I fall from a chair,
What is the most simple answer?  Which answer has the least assumptions?

That mass attracts mass, and the Earth has a gravitational force attracting me to its surface.  Being a fundamental force, we do not know what quantum field may cause gravity.  Many scientist have tested and verified its effects, and the math can predict celestial bodies movements through the sky. 
Or
The Earth is accelerating upwards, possibly being pushed by an unknown force/energy/matter.  Being a totally assumed thing with no mathematical data that cannot be attributed to gravitational effects, and possibly no mass yet it imparts force, hasn't been observed at all, and was thought up just to replace gravity since the world looks flat from my living room window.

Here is the exact quote from the FAQ
Quote
When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
Title: Re: The Occam's Razor argument
Post by: DonaldC on April 16, 2015, 10:47:25 PM
Jroa my argument was about the amount and quality. One experiment that has not been replicated and shown to have many problems associated with it vs. thousands of experiments that have replicated the Cavendish experiments results, new ones that also tested the idea in new ways, and so forth.

You are correct Occam's Razor does not apply, as it is used for two theories that both adequately plain an idea and make similar predictions. An accelerating flat earth and mass exerting an attractive force on other mass are not on par.

As Mikey said I am not using the bandwagon fallacy. If you cannot see the difference between confirming experiments and empirical evidence, and the fallacy then you will never understand how science works. If there were only one experiment on each side, and then all the scientists voted you would be correct. This is emphatically not what happened. Many experiments were conducted, some of a similar nature, many more that tested gravity in different ways, and the theory has been shown to be robust.