1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat-Earther's, I challenge YOU to disprove this logic!

« on: March 02, 2006, 03:02:15 PM »

Well, that's the thing. I'm not so sure there was an argument before, so much as two statements and a conclusion that didn't seem to relate.

# We've shown that if A is true then the Earth is round

# But that's what A says.

# So A is true.

This is the crux of the "argument".

1) Do you disagree that he showed (in the previous section) that if A is true, then the Earth is round?

2) Do you disagree that "If A is true, then the Earth is round" is exactly the statement called A?

For the purpose of answering (1) you may wish to review the following:

o Suppose A is true. Then:

+ If A is true, the Earth is round

+ So the Earth is round (still supposing A).

Probably you want to say "yes" to (1), I hope?  But note that it has nothing to do with the fact that the consequent is "disconnected" from the antecedent.

The important thing is that he threw in "Suppose A is true" and it seems nobody noticed.  How about I suppose A is not true?  Then the whole thing falls apart.  Now it's no longer the case that if A is true, the Earth is round,
so A is now false (because again that's just the statement A).

-Erasmus

Oh, I thought you meant the original argument about paper and trees.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earther's, I challenge YOU to disprove this logic!

« on: March 02, 2006, 09:31:31 AM »

(T & C) --> -P isn't the whole argument, it's a premise. I pulled it out of my ass in order to force the argument to work.

Ah, this was the part I missed.

So er, could we get back to relating this to the original "argument"?

-Erasmus

Well, that's the thing. I'm not so sure there was an argument before, so much as two statements and a conclusion that didn't seem to relate.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earther's, I challenge YOU to disprove this logic!

« on: February 28, 2006, 05:19:37 PM »

Please note that validity does not mean that the premises are true, only that if they are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

Yeah so how does "(T & C) --> -P" constitute a valid argument?  Suppose it happens that T & C, but also P; a true antecedent with a false consequent refutes an implication.

I assure you that I need no lectures on logic.  It just seems to me that your assignment of labels like "valid" to some arguments and not to others follows neither the rules of logic that I'm familiar with, nor those that *you* are familiar with.  What gives?

-Erasmus

(T & C) --> -P isn't the whole argument, it's a premise. I pulled it out of my ass in order to force the argument to work. In the original it's not really clear how the conclusion relates to the two premises given, so I just made one up. It's still absurd.
The whole argument is:
T           Assumption
C           Assumption
(T & C) --> -P Assumption
T & C      I forget what the name for this is
-P          Modus Ponens

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earther's, I challenge YOU to disprove this logic!

« on: February 26, 2006, 01:00:02 PM »

Validity means it adheres to logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

Please note that validity does not mean that the premises are true, only that if they are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

You will notice that examples of logic often only involve letters as representations of premises.

Like
A --> B therefore C

The premises they actually represent are incidental. The utility of logic becomes apparent when the conclusion is clearly absurd. If the argument is valid, then you can be sure that the problem is with one or more of the premises. Then you ask them to logically support a premise you have an issue with. Then they form a valid argument to support that, and flaws may or may not (if they're right after all) pop up in those premises.

Or, if the premises look like they're true, and the argument is valid, but the conclusion is absurd, that is also useful. This is a sign that perhaps a premise you thought was true actually isn't, or that the conclusion only seems absurd, but is actually some kind of revelation.

Logic is only a supplement to judgment, not the entirety of it.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematical proof

« on: February 26, 2006, 10:47:43 AM »

Math is flawed.

Math is flawed? Which branch of mathematics, specifically? All of it? What are the flaws?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earther's, I challenge YOU to disprove this logic!

« on: February 26, 2006, 10:46:16 AM »

Good point... all propositions logically follow from a contradiction?

Well sort of...an argument is invalid if the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

Trees exist
Paper comes from trees

Therefore paper does not exist. This argument is invalid as the premises are true but the conclusion is not.

In the case of a contradiction, since the premises cannot be true, there is no way it can be invalid.

It still doesn't mean the conclusion actually IS true, but the argument is still valid.

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with the veracity of the premises. Logic only evaluates the form of an argument. This makes it a useful tool, but logic is only a small, specific part of reason.

For the argument presented to be valid in accordance with Propositional Logic, you'd have to structure it this way:
If trees exist, and paper comes from trees, then paper does not exist  (T & C)--> -P             Assumption
Trees exist.                                      T      Assumption
Paper comes from trees.                   C     Assumption
Therefore, paper does not exist.         -P     Modus Ponens

The above is a valid argument.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / How thick is the earth then?

« on: February 26, 2006, 10:33:30 AM »

This is just another attempt to make flat-earthers look insane by having them stomp around to try to guess the thickness of the earth. Don't fall for it.

Anyways, it's probably miles deep. Some of our mines go awfully deep, but so far, no one has dug all the way to the flip side.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earther's, I challenge YOU to disprove this logic!

« on: February 24, 2006, 03:38:19 PM »

Logic does not concern the veracity of an argument, only its validity.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Eclipses. Solar and Lunar.

« on: February 24, 2006, 01:51:04 PM »

the sun moves in front of the moon, duh?

"AAAARRGGHG god help us the world is burning up because the sun came too close omg the pain the humanity why why???"

Duh indeed.

Why do you mock the truth?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Something for FEers

« on: February 24, 2006, 01:42:35 PM »

Discs do not have corners.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model

« on: February 24, 2006, 01:37:41 PM »

However it stil doesn't explain how it is done on molecular level.

Honestly, me neither; not fully at least.  

There are two nuclear forces, weak and strong. The weak nuclear force is the result of an atom splitting, while the strong results from them fusing. The subatomic particles in the nuclei of atoms cause atoms to repel one another via the weak nuclear force. However, once they get within a certain distance of each other, the strong nuclear force overpowers the weak, and the atoms fuse. What could compress the atoms, and get them bunched up together so closely that the stronger nuclear force takes over? Gravity.

The laws of thermodynamics only appear to be violated because the stars seemingly use up more fuel than they have, but this illusion is dispelled when astrophysical reaction chains are taken into account. The hydrogen-hydrogen reaction is just one of many fusion reactions taking place in stars. In the heavier stars, the Carbon-Nickel-Oxygen cycle is more common. Our own star will switch from a proton-proton chain to a triple-alpha process, which converts helium into carbon. This change in reactions gives the illusion of the violation of thermodynamics, but the potential energy is miscalculated when people fail to take into account the change of atoms from one type to another. Eventually, the chain of reactions will end.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof the World is ROUND

« on: February 24, 2006, 01:17:00 PM »

I hate always being the one to bring this up, but, 220 km/s relative to what?

The earth, I should say.

Why not enough? Because just because there are more ants between us, doesn't mean they stack any higher up in the air.

There is a finite amount of ground on Earth that the ants can cover. Eventually, they'll have to stack up. This is the reason we have skyscrapers.

Nice try, but even the flailing, misdirected assertions about "atmospheric distortions" have more hope of countering the ships-on-the-horizon refutation that this "it's wavy" nonsense.

Are you saying that the ocean isn't wavy?

Where's the confusion? He claims that you can see them; you claim to never have had the experience. I'm sure you can understand the notion that things you may not have experienced have in fact happened just the same.

I want to see reproducible results. NASA typically reports the cost of one of their supposed space rocket missions around 500 million dollars. This makes a launch beyond the means of everyday people, which makes their claim of seeing the Earth from space virtually unfalsifiable.

While I agree that I've never seen them beaming aliens down, nor have I seen astronauts waving at me, it's pretty childish of you to mention it, since ozzsoad never claimed that *he* saw them. Strawiest straw man I've ever seen.

This from someone who claims to have actually seen satellites, and more than one at a time, at that.

So you're saying that a star, moving for a full night, at the speed of 220 km/s, a BAJILLION light years away, is gonna make a huge friggin difference in our sky ??

Well, obviously it's not going to look dramatic, because it's a long, long ways away.

Because orion always looks the same to me, even 15 years later

That's because it's the same constellation.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof the World is ROUND

« on: February 23, 2006, 01:59:30 PM »

1. Stars move at speeds as high as 220 km/s, so of course the stars would shift position.
2. Actaully, scientists say that the sun is 90 million miles away. Might want to check your facts.
3. Alright, I grabbed a CD, looked at the far edge as if I was standing on it and if I was the size of a flea (just like a person standing on the flat disc known as Earth), and the edge looked flat. How, exactly, does this support your claim that the earth is round?
4. As the ship goes further out, the number of waves potentially occluding your view increases, making it seem like the ship is sinking.
5. I always thought they went up, but that's just me. They seem to disappear because anything, given enough time, seems to disappear as it gets farther away. Eventually, the distance is too great for the human eye to see it. I'm confused as to this claim that you've seen satellites. I have never, looking up at the night sky, seen any of these supposed satellites beaming aliens down, nor have I seen astronauts waving at me as they pass by.