1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: March 14, 2007, 11:44:32 PM »
What profoundly impacted physics are these you speak of?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: March 11, 2007, 02:08:38 PM »What are you talking about? I said there is evidence that points to both and then there is evidence that points only to a round Earth. When faced with this, FE theory always resorts to the conspiracy. That's the point I am trying to make.
I'd much rather you actually bother to read and comprehend what I say. Saves us both time going in circles.
Evidence does not point at anything. Evidence is foundation for explanation; it does not contain any director with it telling you which it supports. Where RE is an explanation, and FE is an explanation, you have evidence that can be used to support both given you have a fitting explanation.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: March 11, 2007, 12:16:34 PM »
An explanation supported by evidence and an explanation with no evidence. Yeah that's what I just said. What?
No, that isn't what you just said. Read it to figure it out.
We're talking about explanations here, not evidence, but-- if you want to-- we can get into that too. When it comes to dealing with the Earth's form or shape, we have only evidence. This isn't an abstract theory or concept. Ergo, what we -- as pseudo-scientists -- are trying to find is an explanation for all the evidence we have.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: March 11, 2007, 12:04:40 PM »Occam's Razor applies directly to FE theory because every "proof" provided could also explain a round Earth. The difference is we have proof that the Round option is true. At this point the argument falls back on the indestructable conspiracy.
No. You have an explanation supported by evidence; whereas both are supported, you cannot dictate one to be the correct one.
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
« on: March 11, 2007, 12:00:11 PM »
yeah...rather an avant garde ass hole.
Do you even know what avant garde is?
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: March 11, 2007, 11:58:26 AM »
Occams Razor is a principle, not a law. It is a concept, not a law.
There's no reason to take something as true or false based on how complicated it is. That's ridiculous. It's more a guideline to keep things simple, not a law with which to debunk theories.
There's no reason to take something as true or false based on how complicated it is. That's ridiculous. It's more a guideline to keep things simple, not a law with which to debunk theories.
7
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?
« on: March 10, 2007, 02:33:23 AM »
Erebos--
you lose.
you lose.
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
« on: March 10, 2007, 01:40:16 AM »First Round Earth whackos, and now this. I guess I shouldn't have expected sanity coming on this board.
It's insane to deny the truth. Why do you deny the 4 dimensions of the earth?
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
« on: March 10, 2007, 01:02:48 AM »So what is it, then?
4D, but don't bother trying to understand; you're too dense. I've read through your posts.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
« on: March 10, 2007, 12:53:55 AM »And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?
No.
Your theory is wrong, just like Timecube. However, the Earth is not round, either.
Pages: [1]