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 - Mikey T.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82
1
Again, in no way have I been anti-expert.  I have repeatedly reiterated that your support of the claim that the ONLY way to gain understanding is from experts.  I'm also not upset, I just enjoy pressing foolish people into self destruction.  You have played the fool very nicely, thank you.  You are wrong.  You also don't get to choose who makes you look like an idiot, I choose to do so, you do your part an continue to be the fool. 
So you have nothing I see to offer proof for your claims that only experts can teach you things then, we will just highlight that failure again then.  Are you going to continue to dance and strawman, or are you going to act... you know what,, never-ending that, fools only really know how to be fools.  So more entertainment for me.

2
This discussion/argument has run its course as itís looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says itís, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!

You keep resisting exposing what your secret non secret experiment is.
WhyÖ.. because there isnít one.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one while even stopping to consult Wikipedia, the great online Expert!

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley. As working on the edge of human knowledge is not a simple affair with easy answers. Nor can they just look it up in Wikipedia. Cutting edge research is a far cry from you stumbling around using trial and error on a problem whoís solution is well known and in the public domain. To try and compare the two situations is just another example of your farcical thinking. You donít operate on the edge of human knowledge. Everything you deal with is known and understood with answers all provided by the many many specialised experts and therefore there is no need of trial and error.

The only piece of original knowledge discovered by you and known to no other is possibly the diameter of the mole on your backside. Quite possible Bly you made the measurement by trial and error.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.

Just like a flat earther who has no Hope of ever proving the earth flat or producing their mythical FE map YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and itís acquisition. Some give the impression that they have unique knowledge or are somehow able to validate any item of knowledge rather than accepting through learning. Most knowledge particularly in the area is science just has to be accepted on the basis of the evidence that is provided. No one has the ability for example to deny scientifically the existence of gravity waves. Nor has anyone the resources to confirm their existence. Itís just one of the many pieces of scientific knowledge that has to be accepted.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
So much wrong here.  When I get back to a computer I may try to explain.  This is a just whole lot of Timmy butthurt.
You never substantiated the claim you supported and you cried and cried about Jack and whined for him to prove you were wrong with an experiment.  You cried about him having the burden of proof when he disagreed with your claim.  You basically took a small mistake of supporting an illogical claim and turned it into a raging bonfire of stupid.  Just couldn't overcome the narcissism enough to just say, oops you were wrong.  Nope you just couldn't do it, can't admit defeat, must continually focus on Jack.

3
You haven't been able to counter JB's clearly laid out logical argument. Until you can do that, you have nothing. You're just being obnoxious.
This.

4
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two Iíve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.

So you opened up some stills in photoshop and fooled around blindly for a bit. What do you want a medal?

Engineers trial and error! Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that. Engineers unlike you are experts in their field and go about task in a systematic way using proven methods which are the antithesis of your unprofessional fooling around in photoshop. Engineers don't guess when designing a structure or system where a mistake could cost lives.

The real world is expert driven. What you have against that is bewildering. People like you who imagine they can acquire complex skills by fiddling around by trial and error and seriously deranged. Before you know where you are you'll be performing brain surgery through trial and error! Go for it. There are some people around here you could practice on !
So, you have no clue what engineers do.  I do, I am an engineer.  Trial and error methods are part and parcel to the whole process.  Stop speaking about things you have no clue about.  It's quite clear who the deranged one is here.  I spoke about engineering, something I have intimate knowledge about, why are you bringing up surgeons?  Is it because you have nothing but pathetic strawman arguments?  I think so.  I have acquired alot of complex knowledge through trial and error methods, the fact that you are so painted onto a corner that you need to take up the absolutely deranged talking points is telling.  What did I say several pages back about experts teaching knowledge to others?  That is is a huge part but NOT required for all learning. 
One of my former professor'
s engineering mantra again, design, test, refine.  That refine is important, experts, engineers, teachers, etc don't know everything.  Learning from mistakes is progress.  Trial and error is in fact learning from failures and successes.  One of the best ways to learn.  It doesn't always require an expert to hold your hand. 
Again, one more time for the cheap seats, you are showing that you are so emotionally involved in this failure of logic that my recommendation is to go ahead and admit your mistake and stop digging this stupid hole deeper.  It's ok if Jack disagreed with you, it ain't the end of the world.  He was right, you are wrong, it's ok to be wrong. 

5
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two Iíve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: transantartic expedition
« on: July 28, 2021, 12:43:22 PM »
A wild necromancer walked into the forums

7
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 28, 2021, 10:09:27 AM »
So now I find myself agreeing with Shifter about Timmy being foolish.  The link in the post I replied to was from the Empire state building.  I spoke about it.  But he doesn't ever admit it when he goes off half cooked and stupid.

Red letter day, Shifter my friend, same side for some weird reason (well an idiot with emotional problem but we will just call it weird).  This must be a sign of the end times.

It was bound to happen eventually I guess. Cheers to these end of times. Maybe the next iteration of the universe really will give flat earthers their flat earth lol

Ive read that idiots tend to agree.
That's a possibility, it still doesn't change that the idiot who threw a little hissy fit about a comment on a different photo than he assumed it was, even though it was linked right there in the comment, showed how foolish he was yet again.  It was very amusing.  Please continue to be a good source of enjoyment for us.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 01:57:57 PM »
So now I find myself agreeing with Shifter about Timmy being foolish.  The link in the post I replied to was from the Empire state building.  I spoke about it.  But he doesn't ever admit it when he goes off half cooked and stupid.

Red letter day, Shifter my friend, same side for some weird reason (well an idiot with emotional problem but we will just call it weird).  This must be a sign of the end times.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 10:00:34 AM »
True

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM »
Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

12
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.
So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head. As a photoshop user and instructor I smell a little rat there. The use of unsharp mask is far from an obvious move. In fact using photoshop flying by the seat of your pants with no help or prior instruction I would say is a waste of time. As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
So you are saying the average person is too stupid to figure out photoshop.  Have you ever done anything on your own, just spent time figuring it out?  I worry for your survival if the internet ever goes down.  I bet you think the food magically appears at the grocery store too. 

13
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

What?
Try reading more slowly, it sometimes helps with comprehension.  If there are any words you need help with just ask.

14
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

15
Just a little info for a curious mind.  Calculus was invented by two people without communications between them at pretty much the same time.  There were some minor differences in method and of course notation but the end result was very similar.  They were trying to answer some questions that trigonometry itself couldn't answer.  No experts in calculus existed prior to that point.  Newton and Leibniz.

You give the impression that it appeared magically out of thin air which was certainly not the case. If you look at the history of mathematics and calculus in particular you will see that there was hundreds of years of groundwork from hundreds of mathematicians before its eventual discovery, which was why it was discovered around about the same time as all the clues were there. All it took was couple of extremely clever mathematicians to use the same clues to make the last few steps.

What is interesting is the HOW. Both Newton and Leibniz most likely had similar source materials to work from, better known as books written by earlier experts in mathematics. Incremental discovery. For example  Arab mathematician Ibn al-Haytham derived a formula for the sum of fourth powers. He used the results to carry out what would now be called an integration. That was in the C11th over 500 years before calculus was 'discovered'

In other words a great example of how experts learn from earlier experts. Discoveries are not made in a vacuum.

Here is a list of some of the books Newton had for bedtime reading:-
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-library/books-in-newtons-library
Again, no expert was available in calculus prior to there discoveries.  Using information and then deriving new and unheard of previously techniques is not the same as an expert in the field taught them how to do it.  Of course you would assume it appeared by magic, you seem to not understand the concept of invention, discovery, etc.  The statement once again, for the thousandth time, was you can't understand something without having an expert teach it to you.  That's what you have been defending, it's stupid, it's wrong.  I'd it were true there would never be progress, new ideas, new technologies.  Plus never blindly trust a so called expert, I don't noone should.  But small minded people who can't seem to actually extrapolate what they see around them and gain an understanding will be forever doomed to go nowhere. 
I now am positive the claim of being a teacher was just a lie to try to use it as an appeal to authority for you. 
Also, good comeback on the phone number, I got a good laugh.

16
Just a little info for a curious mind.  Calculus was invented by two people without communications between them at pretty much the same time.  There were some minor differences in method and of course notation but the end result was very similar.  They were trying to answer some questions that trigonometry itself couldn't answer.  No experts in calculus existed prior to that point.  Newton and Leibniz.

17
Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope. He isn't going to board a flight with Branson or Bezos. He isn't going to interpret satellite telemetry signals, or even view the ISS from the ground. He has to rely on an expert.
You're saying people won't do those things, and yet they do (very few, in the case of riding in an actual rocket, but the rest are more common among amateur enthusiasts). And more importantly: they CAN do those things. And that's really the important thing here that's getting overlooked by you and Tim. It's absolutely possible for someone to discern the shape of the Earth without appealing to an expert - one of the hallmarks of science is how open source it is, in that it is fairly easy to review how others have approached trying to solve and problem and recreate those same steps independently or devise a better way if you can think of one. It's also easier to just ask someone you consider to be an authority on the matter and take their answer at face value. Even more importantly though, it's possible to get an answer from an authority and then, independently, think of ways to test the answer you were given and decide if you feel it is accurate and/or complete, without taking any further advice from that same authority, and arrive at the same conclusion, you've just independently verified something.

I'm not saying you should start construction on your own personal LHC in your back yard to start looking for the Higgs particle or anything like that. But going sailing is a hobby lots of people take up. Looking through telescopes, even more so. The sticks in the ground experiment is laughably easy in today's age where you can Facetime with someone in a completely different geographical region and see instantly how the shadows are different - this might be a great thing to start having kids do in school, frankly. I'm pretty sure Ham radio enthusiasts have bounced signal off the moon before and measured how long it takes the signal to make a round trip - try that with the sun, and you'll discovery pretty quickly that the moon and the sun are not, in fact, the same distance away from the Earth

Where would the folk get the instructions to do the stick in the ground experiment?  In all honesty how did you find out about it? Were you born with the knowledge, did it come in a flash of inspiration or like everyone else did you read about it?
Where did Eratosthenes get the instructions from?

18
Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope.

There is a huge difference between saying the average Joe won't do something and that he can't do something.

Measuring the Suns angle, determining the gravitational constant, looking through a telescope, all these things are certainly possible for the average Joe. They just have to want to do them, or given the opportunity. I've shown plenty of average Joes the wonders of the universe.

I think it's more than plausible to do enough experiments, by ones own hand to determine the shape of the Earth.

But I'm not sure you can really answer the question in the subject, as everyone is going to disagree on what constitutes definitive evidence.

Say you were serious about doing some experiments or an experiment, exactly how would you go about determining which was the best to do?
That depends on what you are trying to determine/support, who your target audience is, your own level of understanding about the basics of said thing you are experimenting for, how comprehensive you need to make the controls, and the resources you have available.  You don't always NEED some expert to hold your hand.  It helps if you are trying to convince others that do not believe you to have some expert opinion, but it is not completely necessary. 

19
Ill have to read thru all this. I stand by my statement. An everyday person can only get the definitive shape of the Earth from an expert. Not doing experiments and drawing conclusions. Simple single definitive evidence would be any picture from space. Acquired from experts obviously. Or from expert in the field who has already coalesced the information to definitely say "yes" the earth is a sphere I know how much people here like authority.  Either way its from an expert. Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope. He isn't going to board a flight with Branson or Bezos. He isn't going to interpret satellite telemetry signals, or even view the ISS from the ground. He has to rely on an expert. I wish more people had the ability to do experiments and correctly interpret data. Thats all part of being a scientist and its a great career.
You have a very low opinion of what the average Joe would do.  People buy small telescopes all the time.  Human curiosity is a thing.  Also depending on what that average Joe does for a living, they may rely on things like orbiting satellites to perform their everyday tasks.  Like the humble TV dish installer who may, actually in alot of cases from my experience in that field formerly, want to learn about where those satellites are to better judge whether their customers will have a trouble free time.  It isn't a long jump to use that to get a sense of the shape if the Earth since, well that system simply wouldn't work if there is nothing orbiting the Earth. 
Or for someone to experience a sunset and actually question where the Sun "goes".  They may not be able to write a scientific paper on the subject, but they can certainly gather enough knowledge to get a beyond reasonable doubt idea of the shape of the Earth.  Especially if you can communicate with other people easily at other locations on Earth to compare notes.  Understand that simply using technology isn't the same as requiring an expert to tell you how it is.

20
So you no longer believe experts are required?  Is that what you are saying?
Say it thusly, you were wrong.  It's ok to admit you were wrong. 
BTW, when I clearly stated it was just a joke,  within the joke is pretty clear to most people that it was a joke, no mind reading necessary, just reading comprehension is needed.  I still do not believe you were a teacher, reading comprehension being a pretty important part, along with honesty and emotional stability.

I take it this is just another joke!
For your limited reading comprehension I have decided to add "this is a joke" for all included jokes.  So since this policy was not made available to you prior to this post I will clarify.  No that post was not a joke.  For future instances of jokes that you won't get, I will make sure to include the warning label for your benefit.  At least until your rage subsides and your brain can again comprehend words and sentences.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 26, 2021, 08:40:00 AM »
God I love scepti.  Never fails to amaze.  Expand equals contract now. 

22
Are we sure Timeisup isn't related to Sando or Heiwa?

I thought we thoroughly debunked the idea and claim, that you can only gain knowledge through experts.
I'm fairly convinced he is an alt of an FE troll.  Just playing the other side.  Notice how he just says things, never properly explaining them.  Remains vague, being dishonest, playing the semantics game, never wanting to admit he may be wrong, just trying to strawman and change what was said, personal attacks(this one is a guilty pleasure of my own sometimes), basically a pigeon on the chessboard shitting everywhere and claiming victory. 

23
So you no longer believe experts are required?  Is that what you are saying?
Say it thusly, you were wrong.  It's ok to admit you were wrong. 
BTW, when I clearly stated it was just a joke,  within the joke is pretty clear to most people that it was a joke, no mind reading necessary, just reading comprehension is needed.  I still do not believe you were a teacher, reading comprehension being a pretty important part, along with honesty and emotional stability.

24
And, also you made me be on Boyd's side, I hate that very much.  Not that Boyd is inherently wrong, I just don't want to agree with him if I can help it. 

Still luv ya Boyd, just a joke.

Wrong again. Another D- for you.

I MADE you do nothing, in that it was your own free choice.

If you imagine people you have never met can MAKE you do things then you have a serious problem of personal responsibility.

Your free choice your free problem.
Nothing to do with me. I will not be your scapegoat!
Wow, you have a real problem.  It was a joke, aimed at Boyd.

25
Wow, you've never taken apart toys as a child to figure out how they worked.  Never played with legos to build things.  I guess those are not experiments in your mind.  You've never done anything that someone didn't expressly tell you how to do.  Never learned anything that wasn't force fed to you.  Either you are the saddest person in the world, or you are full of bullshit.  I was a very inquisitive child, I had to know how things worked, so as far back as I can remember I was doing experiments, even before I knew what that word was or even how to read.  In fact I was discouraged because I would end up breaking about a third of my toys from taking them apart.  But I built a few weird things also, changing their purpose.
 
Also this isn't the claim that people are arguing against, you continue to support that you cannot get information from any other place than an expert.  That is wrong.  In your world there would be no innovation, no new anything.  We would all be waiting for that first expert, that can't be because we can't learn from other sources.  The reason so much, but NOT ALL, is based off of previous knowledge is because that is the easiest path, the natural evolution of technology, not the only path though.
Weird how you still cannot be honest also.  This weird fixation with Jack is a bit creepy.

Did I design any experiments, yes, it was a part of the curriculum.  Here is the "insert effect here", design an experiment to test and verify this effect.  The grade wasn't on if you proved or disproved, it was on whether you designed the experiment in a way that mitigated external factors.  We can play this idiotic semantics game all day.  I didn't HAVE to write any books.  I have in fact wrote several technical articles on various aspects of PLC programming and communications protocols that I couldn't find out on the web. 

Also, figuring out things without instructions is kinda my everyday job.  So yeah I know a thing or two about gathering knowledge.  Is that built knowledge I already gained, yes.  Does that new knowledge REQUIRE an expert in that field to show me, no.  An almost weekly occurrence is for someone to come up to me and ask me to automate this, or design that, with no real information to speak of, and being in a facility that is the only place that does some of the things we do, there isn't a huge amount of information out there to tell me how to complete those requests. 

With your past inability to be honest when called out, and your idiotic assumptions on how knowledge can be gathered, I serious doubt you ever worked in education, at the very least you were not a teacher.  The tell is, you said you worked in education, not you were a teacher or professor.  Then tried to claim that that gave you more knowledge about the subject when you absolutely do not.  It's like saying I worked in the airline industry therefore I know everything about being a pilot, when I in fact worked as an automation engineer in a factory that made composite airplane engine parts.  True story. 
Thanks for the D-, it means nothing really but hey you tried to play act like a teacher.

I think are wandering well away from the central question.

Of course play is vitally important in a Childs development, you won't get any argument on that from me.

All your other comments are you own opinion and you are welcome to them.

I was a teacher.

The D- was a reflection of the comment you made in that it failed to prove the point you were trying to make, and in fact did the exact opposite in proving my point.

Why the obsession with me and not the point Im trying to prove? Why do 'you' people always want to drag the person into the discussion and make pretty petty and pointless judgments
Which point, I've been repeatedly addressing the same one about experts being required for knowledge gain.  You defended that idiotic statement not me.  I also pointed out your dishonesty and clear narcissistic tendencies when cornered, never once trying to be honest, just constant deflection. 
I still do not believe you were a teacher, if you did I hope it wasn't long.  You clearly do not have the intellectual honesty or emotional makeup to do it adequately.  I have many teachers in my family and even thought of following that path since I really do value teaching people, but things changed emotionally for me after some military deployments and I am not suited for the role.  The important thing being that I know I wouldn't have the patience and I see the same in you.  Hence me trying desperately to get you to see the failures I made going down this path, but you are more likely just as stubborn as I am. 
Play is a learning mechanism, curiosity is a learning mechanism, neither REQUIRE an expert.  That's just 2 broad examples of the falsehood of the statement you are so fervently defending.  I pretty much know why you are sticking to your guns, even if it is so clearly wrong.  Takes one, or rather hopefully a former one, to know one.  Narcissism can be addictive, honestly thinking you know more than anyone else around you, unable to admit failures.  I get it, I'm trying to deal with my own failures in that respect every day, do I backside, oh yeah all the time.  Not the little mean nothing remarks I make to scepti, which I hope he realizes are just for fun, the real times it happens.  As far as obsession with you, I have none, but many people tend to hate what they see in the mirror and your behavior has been reminding me of that fact.  I wanted you to realize it is better to just be honest instead of squirming around to try to find some way that you were not actually wrong.  I thought the trigger was that it was Jack disagreeing with you, and your responses and actions toward him continue to back that up pretty well. 
Again, state your position clearly, because this entire fiasco has been about knowledge requiring experts to deliver it.  Jack has quoted it many times, you have supported it many times, it is completely wrong.  Using prior knowledge is not the same and not all knowledge is based off of prior knowledge anyway.  I gave you examples with the cabin thought experiment which you glossed over and just concentrated on my use of plotting star paths.  Weird how the ancient Mayans plotted the star paths and created full predictions of star movements without some expert, or that none of their experts traveled to ancient Egypt to train those astronomers, or the ancient Celtic astronomers, or ancient Asian astronomers.  Where did those differing pathways to knowledge about the star movements come from?  I guess there was some ancient alien experts to teach them all.

You really do need a break. Why all the personal attacks?

Stick to the point.

I dont care a toss about your rather deranged sounding opinions. What you think is no more than what you think. And if I were you Iíd keep what you think to yourself as you continually make yourself come over as a fool.
So Timmy, you being honest, that's just off the table then huh. 
I also asked you to clarify your point, but you can't, can you? 
So what if you think I'm deranged, the point was that I've been there and I was trying to help you.  But lash out, claim it is an personal attack, call me a fool.  It's ok, really.
But remember, you are wrong about requiring an expert to pass on knowledge. 

26
And, also you made me be on Boyd's side, I hate that very much.  Not that Boyd is inherently wrong, I just don't want to agree with him if I can help it. 

Still luv ya Boyd, just a joke.

27
Wow, you've never taken apart toys as a child to figure out how they worked.  Never played with legos to build things.  I guess those are not experiments in your mind.  You've never done anything that someone didn't expressly tell you how to do.  Never learned anything that wasn't force fed to you.  Either you are the saddest person in the world, or you are full of bullshit.  I was a very inquisitive child, I had to know how things worked, so as far back as I can remember I was doing experiments, even before I knew what that word was or even how to read.  In fact I was discouraged because I would end up breaking about a third of my toys from taking them apart.  But I built a few weird things also, changing their purpose.
 
Also this isn't the claim that people are arguing against, you continue to support that you cannot get information from any other place than an expert.  That is wrong.  In your world there would be no innovation, no new anything.  We would all be waiting for that first expert, that can't be because we can't learn from other sources.  The reason so much, but NOT ALL, is based off of previous knowledge is because that is the easiest path, the natural evolution of technology, not the only path though.
Weird how you still cannot be honest also.  This weird fixation with Jack is a bit creepy.

Did I design any experiments, yes, it was a part of the curriculum.  Here is the "insert effect here", design an experiment to test and verify this effect.  The grade wasn't on if you proved or disproved, it was on whether you designed the experiment in a way that mitigated external factors.  We can play this idiotic semantics game all day.  I didn't HAVE to write any books.  I have in fact wrote several technical articles on various aspects of PLC programming and communications protocols that I couldn't find out on the web. 

Also, figuring out things without instructions is kinda my everyday job.  So yeah I know a thing or two about gathering knowledge.  Is that built knowledge I already gained, yes.  Does that new knowledge REQUIRE an expert in that field to show me, no.  An almost weekly occurrence is for someone to come up to me and ask me to automate this, or design that, with no real information to speak of, and being in a facility that is the only place that does some of the things we do, there isn't a huge amount of information out there to tell me how to complete those requests. 

With your past inability to be honest when called out, and your idiotic assumptions on how knowledge can be gathered, I serious doubt you ever worked in education, at the very least you were not a teacher.  The tell is, you said you worked in education, not you were a teacher or professor.  Then tried to claim that that gave you more knowledge about the subject when you absolutely do not.  It's like saying I worked in the airline industry therefore I know everything about being a pilot, when I in fact worked as an automation engineer in a factory that made composite airplane engine parts.  True story. 
Thanks for the D-, it means nothing really but hey you tried to play act like a teacher.

I think are wandering well away from the central question.

Of course play is vitally important in a Childs development, you won't get any argument on that from me.

All your other comments are you own opinion and you are welcome to them.

I was a teacher.

The D- was a reflection of the comment you made in that it failed to prove the point you were trying to make, and in fact did the exact opposite in proving my point.

Why the obsession with me and not the point Im trying to prove? Why do 'you' people always want to drag the person into the discussion and make pretty petty and pointless judgments
Which point, I've been repeatedly addressing the same one about experts being required for knowledge gain.  You defended that idiotic statement not me.  I also pointed out your dishonesty and clear narcissistic tendencies when cornered, never once trying to be honest, just constant deflection. 
I still do not believe you were a teacher, if you did I hope it wasn't long.  You clearly do not have the intellectual honesty or emotional makeup to do it adequately.  I have many teachers in my family and even thought of following that path since I really do value teaching people, but things changed emotionally for me after some military deployments and I am not suited for the role.  The important thing being that I know I wouldn't have the patience and I see the same in you.  Hence me trying desperately to get you to see the failures I made going down this path, but you are more likely just as stubborn as I am. 
Play is a learning mechanism, curiosity is a learning mechanism, neither REQUIRE an expert.  That's just 2 broad examples of the falsehood of the statement you are so fervently defending.  I pretty much know why you are sticking to your guns, even if it is so clearly wrong.  Takes one, or rather hopefully a former one, to know one.  Narcissism can be addictive, honestly thinking you know more than anyone else around you, unable to admit failures.  I get it, I'm trying to deal with my own failures in that respect every day, do I backside, oh yeah all the time.  Not the little mean nothing remarks I make to scepti, which I hope he realizes are just for fun, the real times it happens.  As far as obsession with you, I have none, but many people tend to hate what they see in the mirror and your behavior has been reminding me of that fact.  I wanted you to realize it is better to just be honest instead of squirming around to try to find some way that you were not actually wrong.  I thought the trigger was that it was Jack disagreeing with you, and your responses and actions toward him continue to back that up pretty well. 
Again, state your position clearly, because this entire fiasco has been about knowledge requiring experts to deliver it.  Jack has quoted it many times, you have supported it many times, it is completely wrong.  Using prior knowledge is not the same and not all knowledge is based off of prior knowledge anyway.  I gave you examples with the cabin thought experiment which you glossed over and just concentrated on my use of plotting star paths.  Weird how the ancient Mayans plotted the star paths and created full predictions of star movements without some expert, or that none of their experts traveled to ancient Egypt to train those astronomers, or the ancient Celtic astronomers, or ancient Asian astronomers.  Where did those differing pathways to knowledge about the star movements come from?  I guess there was some ancient alien experts to teach them all. 


28
Wow, you've never taken apart toys as a child to figure out how they worked.  Never played with legos to build things.  I guess those are not experiments in your mind.  You've never done anything that someone didn't expressly tell you how to do.  Never learned anything that wasn't force fed to you.  Either you are the saddest person in the world, or you are full of bullshit.  I was a very inquisitive child, I had to know how things worked, so as far back as I can remember I was doing experiments, even before I knew what that word was or even how to read.  In fact I was discouraged because I would end up breaking about a third of my toys from taking them apart.  But I built a few weird things also, changing their purpose.
 
Also this isn't the claim that people are arguing against, you continue to support that you cannot get information from any other place than an expert.  That is wrong.  In your world there would be no innovation, no new anything.  We would all be waiting for that first expert, that can't be because we can't learn from other sources.  The reason so much, but NOT ALL, is based off of previous knowledge is because that is the easiest path, the natural evolution of technology, not the only path though.
Weird how you still cannot be honest also.  This weird fixation with Jack is a bit creepy.

Did I design any experiments, yes, it was a part of the curriculum.  Here is the "insert effect here", design an experiment to test and verify this effect.  The grade wasn't on if you proved or disproved, it was on whether you designed the experiment in a way that mitigated external factors.  We can play this idiotic semantics game all day.  I didn't HAVE to write any books.  I have in fact wrote several technical articles on various aspects of PLC programming and communications protocols that I couldn't find out on the web. 

Also, figuring out things without instructions is kinda my everyday job.  So yeah I know a thing or two about gathering knowledge.  Is that built knowledge I already gained, yes.  Does that new knowledge REQUIRE an expert in that field to show me, no.  An almost weekly occurrence is for someone to come up to me and ask me to automate this, or design that, with no real information to speak of, and being in a facility that is the only place that does some of the things we do, there isn't a huge amount of information out there to tell me how to complete those requests. 

With your past inability to be honest when called out, and your idiotic assumptions on how knowledge can be gathered, I serious doubt you ever worked in education, at the very least you were not a teacher.  The tell is, you said you worked in education, not you were a teacher or professor.  Then tried to claim that that gave you more knowledge about the subject when you absolutely do not.  It's like saying I worked in the airline industry therefore I know everything about being a pilot, when I in fact worked as an automation engineer in a factory that made composite airplane engine parts.  True story. 
Thanks for the D-, it means nothing really but hey you tried to play act like a teacher.




29
I don't know where to begin with how absolutely idiotic a statement like you can't validate a scientific claim on your own is.  You do that in physics classes all the time.  Even in High School.  Yes they have instructions on how to setup an experiment, but students are also encouraged to come up with their own ways of experimentation all the time.  I guess Tim is the type of guy who can't boil water without instructions so maybe he just can't help it. 
Yes, honest mistakes are acceptable, but there is this little part of that called honesty, you know actually owning up to that mistake instead of pages of claiming you never made the mistake.  I get it, your feelings got hurt, it's hard to admit mistakes even if your emotions aren't tied into that mistake and it's much harder if they are.  This is not the way to go about honestly admitting a mistake, ie just blatantly on the attack. 
Again, take a break for your own well being, you aren't doing yourself any favors by being narcisticly dishonest. 

30
Wow, Liar Liar pants on fire...

You said I said:-

Here you are claiming that I asserted Yuri didn't receive any assistance, quite different from what I actually said, which was based upon your claim of him being the person to understand the shape of Earth being the one true expert on the shape of Earth.

Never but never did I ever say he was the one true expert.
So how does it feel to be a hypocrite as well as a liar?

Would you like your cake as well?


Interesting.  You clearly said this 
One moment Yuri Gagarin was not an authoritative expert on the shape of the globe then some moments later he was the one true expert having see and experienced something no man had ever seen or done before, made an orbit of planet earth.


So in claiming Jack was lying, you clearly lied, ABOUT THAT VERY LIE.  Sad, really sad.  Who is the hypocrite?  Who is the liar?  Such emotional idiocy.  Dude, I reiterate my earlier request of you taking a break.
How's that humble pie gonna taste?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82