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.


Messages - burt

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are All These Circumnavigators Lying?
« on: June 04, 2014, 04:38:38 PM »
The point is, is if you can travel in a great circle at all, you are not on a flat earth. Full stop. If jroa concedes that it has been done east to west, then he concedes that the earth is not flat. But to establish that it is round, you would have to do more that just show that a great cirlce is possible. A great cirlce refutes FE, but does not establish RE.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Clarification
« on: April 01, 2014, 01:18:28 PM »
Why do you ignore the other derailers, JimmyTheCrab?

JimmyTheCrab doesn't have time to keep tabs on everyone.

3
burt, I think you broke ausGeoff!

Broken?   Broken.....?

Burt thoroughly destroyed me Space Cowgirl.  I may never walk unaided on two legs again!   ;D

Have you got any criticisms of my argument?

4

I backed up my claim that you were an idiot, now back up your claim that I am an FE or that I believe in astrology, goatboy.


Whoaaaa..... the ad homs are flying thick and fast now!  Well done Burt; an excellently tabled argument against me.   ;D

Flat earth desperation anyone?
Concentrate: I have taken out the insult (not ad hominem, because it was not part of my argument, instead ancillary to it), so that you can focus on the argument



This is what is called the definitist fallacy. The thing that is in dispute is not whether there are astrological tenets (in the way that you define them), which you tacitly assumed existed when you said:

"The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers. "

other wise what does "only exist" mean here?...erm...not exist?


So you are denying that astrological tenets can exist at all, and not that they  just exist (or "only exist") in people's minds (which is the thing in dispute), but rather that astrology does not have any tenets, because tenets are "hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity" of some theory, now to go along with your new claim (by redifining the word tenet", which is wrong anyway because a tenet is a "principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" it does not necessarily have to make the theory valid.), you have just defined astrological tenets and lots of other tenets out of existence, which is not what you were trying to argue, and so you have moved the posts of your argument, which you keep doing, in order not be refuted - they are called conventionalist ad hoc stratagems.

The conclusion here is that

astrological tenets cannot exist, but they only exist in people's minds

they do exist and they don't exist [p ^ ¬p]

 


Concentrate my friend, the above is my argument, have you got any rebuttals?

5


Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.



How can I be back into the corner.

1. It is your claim that is in dispute, not mine.
2. I have not given you a position to back me in a corner over
3. the fact that you think I am arguing from an FE point of view backs up the fact that you have no idea what I am attacking in your argument, because of this you are trying to shift the burden, because you are confused or stupid.

6

You are an idiot.


Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.

The good old, no fail, guaranteed-to-win-an-argument ad hominem attack.

Well done my friend.  You've just further reinforced my opinions of flat earther logic.   It's an oxymoron.   ;D


So you concentrate on the weakest part of my argument. And not the part where I completely tore you a new one. Yeah, you have loads of intellectual honesty. I backed up my claim that you were an idiot, now back up your claim that I am an FE or that I believe in astrology, goatboy.

7
And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.

I don't believe in astrology and I am not a "Flat Earther" LOL.

8
Nope.  Sorry.

A tenet is one of the principles on which a hypothesis or a theory is based. There are no hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity of astrology.  Ergo no tenets.

And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.

You are an idiot. This is what is called the definitist fallacy. The thing that is in dispute is not whether there are astrological tenets (in the way that you define them), which you tacitly assumed existed when you said:

"The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers. "

other wise what does "only exist" mean here?...erm...not exist?


So you are denying that astrological tenets can exist at all, and not that they  just exist (or "only exist") in people's minds (which is the thing in dispute), but rather that astrology does not have any tenets, because tenets are "hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity" of some theory, now to go along with your new claim (by redifining the word tenet", which is wrong anyway because a tenet is a "principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" it does not necessarily have to make the theory valid.), you have just defined astrological tenets and lots of other tenets out of existence, which is not what you were trying to argue, and so you have moved the posts of your argument, which you keep doing, in order not be refuted - they are called conventionalist ad hoc stratagems.

The conclusion here is that

astrological tenets cannot exist, but they only exist in people's minds

they do exist and they don't exist [p ^ ¬p]

 

9
Thanks for your detailed response Burt.   ;D

Now... would you care to explain exactly why you've said what you've said—or, in this case—not said?

And remember mate; one word answers = bullshit.

1. Irrelevent - because it changed what you originally said to something else.

2. False - because the tenets of astrology can "exist" in anyone's mind not just those that believe it.

3. false - same again. Otherwise philosophers would not be able to engage with arguments about people's beliefs in god.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Reason Flat Earth Theory is Rediculous!
« on: March 23, 2014, 08:56:23 PM »
I don't understand how because we can find instances where corporations and gov'ts have lied to us, THEREFORE the Earth is flat.

I can't follow this logic.

Sodium fluoride is bullshit though! All test were done with Calcium fluoride. And why does this mean the world is flat?

What logic? if you are using round earth logic, that is the reason for your comprehension failure.

11
Well, hopefully whoever you're collecting data for can decipher your sentences.
It is called deception.

No, I think it is called stupidity.

12
Please refrain from making personal attacks.  Thanks.
I mean, if you're going to make personal attacks, you can at least spell them right.
Am I right jroa?
Is it yaw ?

Nah, I think its "yous"

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Visitors to Antarctica Prove Antartica is Real
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:44:44 PM »
who cares!!

Stop derailing the thread.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Visitors to Antarctica Prove Antartica is Real
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:41:06 PM »
My semantics bashing skills are bigger than yours.

irrelevant.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Visitors to Antarctica Prove Antartica is Real
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:36:29 PM »
Well, that post was as content full as an empty glass of water.  Perhaps you can actually prove something?

"An empty glass of water" is nonsense.
So was the post. 

So your claim is not that it was content less, but that it was nonsense?

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Evidence we have that the Earth is Flat is...
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:34:33 PM »
No, but a book about aliens would show you the reasons to believe something or not believe others. 

Everyone who reads ENaG becomes a flat Earther.

No one has ever read that book apart from jroa.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Visitors to Antarctica Prove Antartica is Real
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:32:49 PM »
Well, that post was as content full as an empty glass of water.  Perhaps you can actually prove something?

"An empty glass of water" is nonsense.

18
The position of a radical skeptic is that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't help your case. In the trilemma, one position is that there are inherent truths. This is not true, as who decides the inherency of truth?

 No one opinion is more valid than another. The second way that knowledge is supposed to be possible is through the infinity of proofs. David Hume established the the link between cause and effect is illusory. Any proof that is attempted through that is wrong. Why is each proof connected to the next? Because we decide so. There is no other reason but human wishfulness to connect axioms. Thirdly. A way to justify knowledge is by saying the proof backs up the theory and vice versa. This is impossible as proof can never support theory. One thing can never justify another. Trees fall down when they are cut, why? Gravity? How does gravity make a tree fall down? Because that is what gravity does. Why does gravity do that? Because it does. When intertwining proof and theory down to the elementary level, an absurd, unprovable statement will arise.

Agrippa's trilemma is not trying to say there are different kinds of knowledge, it is trying to point that trying to JUSTIFY knowledge leads to one of the fallacies (which you outlined as though they were a rebbutal to agrippa's trilemma).

Agrippa's trilemma points out the fallacy of trying to justify knowledge. We are trying to classify knowledge, not certify it.

The reason agrippa's trilemma shows that the radical sceptic is wrong, is because the radical sceptic believes that any kind of knowledge must be justified by one of the trillemma's therefore falling into the same trap that justificationists do, i.e believing that the only type of knowledge is knowledge that is justified which is false. The difference between the people who believe that justification is necessary

is like this

Finitists believe that the infinite regress is legitimate
Axiomatics believe that there are self-evident truths
coherentists believe that things can be justified by themselves.
Radical Sceptics deny knowledge is possible, because none of the above work and the only true knowledge has to be based on one of the above. they don't reject that at least one of the above would factor into "true" knowledge (which they should) they instead state that knowledge is impossible (which is false).

That is why agippa's trilemma helps my case.
And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.

So...?
Beliefs are just that. In the end you need true facts to come to the real world. If a FE'er thinks the Antarctica is just a wall of ice then he should go there see for himself. If he does not want to go then his theories are just that. That is no evidence to his claim.

Evidence does not make a claim true.

Could you restate more explicitly this statement  "his theories are just that"

19
The position of a radical skeptic is that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't help your case. In the trilemma, one position is that there are inherent truths. This is not true, as who decides the inherency of truth?

 No one opinion is more valid than another. The second way that knowledge is supposed to be possible is through the infinity of proofs. David Hume established the the link between cause and effect is illusory. Any proof that is attempted through that is wrong. Why is each proof connected to the next? Because we decide so. There is no other reason but human wishfulness to connect axioms. Thirdly. A way to justify knowledge is by saying the proof backs up the theory and vice versa. This is impossible as proof can never support theory. One thing can never justify another. Trees fall down when they are cut, why? Gravity? How does gravity make a tree fall down? Because that is what gravity does. Why does gravity do that? Because it does. When intertwining proof and theory down to the elementary level, an absurd, unprovable statement will arise.

Agrippa's trilemma is not trying to say there are different kinds of knowledge, it is trying to point that trying to JUSTIFY knowledge leads to one of the fallacies (which you outlined as though they were a rebbutal to agrippa's trilemma).

Agrippa's trilemma points out the fallacy of trying to justify knowledge. We are trying to classify knowledge, not certify it.

The reason agrippa's trilemma shows that the radical sceptic is wrong, is because the radical sceptic believes that any kind of knowledge must be justified by one of the trillemma's therefore falling into the same trap that justificationists do, i.e believing that the only type of knowledge is knowledge that is justified which is false. The difference between the people who believe that justification is necessary

is like this

Finitists believe that the infinite regress is legitimate
Axiomatics believe that there are self-evident truths
coherentists believe that things can be justified by themselves.
Radical Sceptics deny knowledge is possible, because none of the above work and the only true knowledge has to be based on one of the above. they don't reject that at least one of the above would factor into "true" knowledge (which they should) they instead state that knowledge is impossible (which is false).

That is why agippa's trilemma helps my case.
And if you fall from a tall building you more than believe in death.

So...?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Evidence we have that the Earth is Flat is...
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:11:54 PM »
I WILL SIMPLIFY THE QUESTION NOW. FILL IN THE BLANK:

"The evidence that the Earth is Flat is  ____________________________"

Do not say it is not round. That is not why the Earth is flat. You do not know a shirt is blue because it is not green.

Earth not a Globe is a Book by Rowbotham. I think Jroa is directing you to that book. But it is an evasion cuz that book is a fallacious bit of psuedo-scpetical doggerel.

21
The position of a radical skeptic is that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't help your case. In the trilemma, one position is that there are inherent truths. This is not true, as who decides the inherency of truth?

 No one opinion is more valid than another. The second way that knowledge is supposed to be possible is through the infinity of proofs. David Hume established the the link between cause and effect is illusory. Any proof that is attempted through that is wrong. Why is each proof connected to the next? Because we decide so. There is no other reason but human wishfulness to connect axioms. Thirdly. A way to justify knowledge is by saying the proof backs up the theory and vice versa. This is impossible as proof can never support theory. One thing can never justify another. Trees fall down when they are cut, why? Gravity? How does gravity make a tree fall down? Because that is what gravity does. Why does gravity do that? Because it does. When intertwining proof and theory down to the elementary level, an absurd, unprovable statement will arise.

Agrippa's trilemma is not trying to say there are different kinds of knowledge, it is trying to point that trying to JUSTIFY knowledge leads to one of the fallacies (which you outlined as though they were a rebbutal to agrippa's trilemma).

Agrippa's trilemma points out the fallacy of trying to justify knowledge. We are trying to classify knowledge, not certify it.

The reason agrippa's trilemma shows that the radical sceptic is wrong, is because the radical sceptic believes that any kind of knowledge must be justified by one of the trillemma's therefore falling into the same trap that justificationists do, i.e believing that the only type of knowledge is knowledge that is justified which is false. The difference between the people who believe that justification is necessary

is like this

Finitists believe that the infinite regress is legitimate
Axiomatics believe that there are self-evident truths
coherentists believe that things can be justified by themselves.
Radical Sceptics deny knowledge is possible, because none of the above work and the only true knowledge has to be based on one of the above. they don't reject the idea that one of the above would factor into "true" knowledge (which they should, in other words knowledge would not need to be justified.) they instead state that knowledge is impossible (which is false).

That is why agippa's trilemma helps my case.

22

Don't you mean that astrology does not say anything about the real world and not "astrology has no place in the real world" which is false, because people clearly still have the opinion that it works? So there is a place for it in the real world.


Nope. The fact that misguided or delude people still believe that astrology is a genuine "science" doesn't warrant its place in a real world—the one we inhabit. 
Irrelevant.

The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers.

False.

As do beliefs in supernatural entities (such as God) and paranormal phenomena (such as miracles).

False.

23

You do understand that astrology is a bogus practice, and has no place in the real world don't you?  It's nothing more than a bit of fun printed in the daily papers, and has no place on a site that's generally of a scientific nature (even if at times that science seems totally preposterous).

A few people here may confuse the legitimate science of astronomy with astrology, which can only muddy the waters further.

Don't you mean that astrology does not say anything about the real world and not "astrology has no place in the real world" which is false, because people clearly still have the opinion that it works? So there is a place for it in the real world.

I agree though that it does not say anything about the real world, other than what it does.

Astrophysics>Astronomy.

24
I absolutely know you are not real because you are a figment of my imagination. Prove me wrong.

Why would you talk to people that you know are just a figment of your imagination?


25
Why is this moron allowed to post here?

Because it is an open forum.

What Moore says about conspiracy theory is totally derived from wilson; that is why it was relevant, there are many videos of wilson saying the same thing more eloquently and with much more detail.

If you could take what Moore is saying and explicate what your conclusions are about the people on the Flat Earth Forum, then you might have some point. but simply posting a video, with a conglatulatory introduction, is pointless.

P.S look up operation mindfuck, and you might get more of a feel for what this forum is.

26
I wonder if it is ever possible to post at thread here and stay on subject. More and Wison are totally different authors and has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Sorry jerr, just trying to be conducive to your presense, but you have persistenly been a jerk. why not stop being a jerk and just get involved in the community or fuck off.

27
Alan Moore, one of, if not, the greatest comic book and graphic novelist ever, literary genius. writer of Watchmen. V for Vendetta, From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and many others, explains why conspiracy theorists think how they do. This doesn't mean there are no conspiracies or gov't cover ups. But people who live their lives by conspiracies or people like Flat Earthers, should understand what he is trying to say here. If you read V for Vendetta, you know he is very anti-establishment. But what he is talking about is the thinking behind conspiracy obsessed people. The motivation behind believing the Earth is Flat is not based on any evidence, it is based on a mental state.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Alan Moore on Conspiracies

Alan moore was heavily influenced by Wilson. I went to the Cosmic Trigger taster of Eris Campbell's play of Wilson's book of the same name; there they got Alan Moore to talk about how wilson influenced him, and he said that most of his views about conspiracy theories were drawn from the writings of Wilson. Incidentally Wilson wrote an interesting article on the bedford level experiment, which is what brought me to this Grand Forum all those years ago. Wilson says that the experiments were inconclusive, But I suspect he was pulling legs for the sake of operation mindfuck. Think for yourself, schmuck.

I just looked at how long ago I joined, my god. 8 years, and I have only done 800 posts.


28
The burden of proof is on knowledge, not against knowledge.
Radical skepticism states that it is merely impossible to know anything. How do you know 1+1=2?

And I answerd this criticism, because they believe in a justificatory view of knoweledge which is false, because of agrippas trilemma.

1+1 = 2 is just a conventional way of putting a methematical truism. But any way maths is irrelevant, becuase it is a system of tautologies.

29

And, you still haven't answered my question on why both theories do not have equal inheritance.

relies on whether theory gives a better explanation than others and is, in principle, falsifiable.



Your question was modified from the first to second.

If you think that a model has a better explanatory power. What you have to do is bring to the table what thoery you have and why your theory is better than the current one (meaning you have to offer both criticism of the prevailing view and an apprasisal of yours), the new view has to explain the anomalies that the old one could not solve, solve everything the earlier one solved and predict things that cannot be accounted for by the old theory, so that they can be tested against eachother


30
Radically skepticism is philosophically impeccable. Try to disprove it.
And, you still haven't answered my question on why both theories do not have equal inheritance.

Give me an argument for radical scepticism.

If a theory is not falsifiable it holds no knowledge.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26