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.

Topics - Pablo the Incredible

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Quite interesting...
« on: May 24, 2007, 01:25:31 PM »
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.[21]
Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[22]
Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)[23]
Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[24]

 Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability)[25]
Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict[26]
Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[27]
Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing).[28]
Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[29]
Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[30]
Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings.[31]
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").[32] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[33]
The science community expects authors to share data necessary to evaluate a paper. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results is a lack of openness.[34]
Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.[35]

From wiki article defineling pseudo-science. Just thought it interesting that this site fits the bill here. :D

Especially the burden of proof thing.
Don't bring out the old "wikipedia can't be a good source because it's edited by everyone" excuse ::). It's sad, It only furthers my point, and it's false. Wiki has mods that patrol the site looking for errors. They fix them as they find them. :o

Flat Earth Q&A / The Conpiracy's Purpose
« on: March 13, 2007, 06:03:07 PM »
From what I can deduce from this forum, the sole purpose for the conspiracy is to continue the conspiracy.

You say NASA is using space money to make high-end imaging software. The only reason to do this would be to fake pictures of earth from space. But the only reason to do this would be to keep the public in the dark. The reason to keep the public in the dark is so that NASA can use tax dollars to fake high tech pictures of the planet.  :o
See what I mean?

Flat Earth Q&A / Lunar eclipses
« on: March 05, 2007, 07:52:47 AM »
This may or may not have been mentioned before, but how does a LUNAR eclipse occur on FE?

keep in mind that the lunar eclipse is the shadow of the earth covering the moon. If the sun circles with the moon ABOVE  the earth, how is the moon covered by the earths shadow which by simple logic would not exist?

I would like to add as well, A shadow object is not feasible so dont even try to tell me that.

Flat Earth Q&A / Now this is interesting.
« on: March 02, 2007, 12:20:34 PM »
Now here's an interesting observation, Universal gravitation states that everything with mass has gravity. This also relates to disks. Why then do FE'ers deny gravity?

Please note, I am a solid RE'er I am putting this out to reveal yet another hole in the FE theory. If this is in the FAQ, I havent seen it.

Flat Earth Q&A / How did FE even occur?
« on: February 24, 2007, 06:30:13 PM »
How's about a more detailed explaination as to how the "flat earth" got its shape?

And no, I will NOT take Tom's half-ass reason: "spinning and shearing forces in its early life" (paraphrased)

Pages: [1]