standards

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 12:32:53 PM

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 10:35:05 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 10:00:05 AM

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 06:41:21 AM

JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.

No, we know there is no cover up because of Occam's Razor. You know, the principle to pretend to use to troll us?

I've never in my life seen Occam's Razor more misapplied and misunderstood than by round-earthers on this forum.  They seem to think it states, "Whatever personally makes the most sense to you is the iron-clad, set-in-stone, immovable law of the universe."

Occom's Razor is a handy little trick to help battle confirmation bias.  It's a reminder to help keep a person grounded.  If Occom's Razor were applied like people use it here then Quantum Physics would never have gotten off a chalk board.  It's a wonderfully puzzling wing of physics that is ridiculously counter-intuitive and not at all what's "most likely."

"Sir, this wave function collapses when observed, as if it somehow knows it's being observed."
"You're fired Johnson, we don't contradict Occom's Razor round these parts."

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 08, 2015, 06:08:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 08, 2015, 05:04:01 AM

purposefully trying to irritate me with dishonesty, and failing to add anything to the discussion.
how you can think yourself as intelligent is beyond me.

Dishonesty? Your affirming the consequent of something you cannot even prove.

well you're lying about who i am, for once. i tried ignoring it, now it's just grown tiresome. i do ot like having my theories attributed to someone else, i put a great deal of work into them. ask the moderators to compare ip addresses, if you want evidence. i have made that challenge before. clearly no one is interested in truth.
you have also ignored basic, logical and observational evidence which i have pointed out before. you seem to think ignoring evidence makes you clever.

   Your op is about standards and you now know that the same standards apply to you than anyone else.

   

  You cannot do 1, 2 and 3 then jump directly to develop theories and expect everyone to take your word for it. Furthermore "the world looks flat ouside my window therefore aether and global conspiracy" is hardly the type of logic that people will take seriously.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 02:34:23 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 12:32:53 PM

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 10:35:05 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 10:00:05 AM

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on April 07, 2015, 06:41:21 AM

JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.

No, we know there is no cover up because of Occam's Razor. You know, the principle to pretend to use to troll us?

I've never in my life seen Occam's Razor more misapplied and misunderstood than by round-earthers on this forum.  They seem to think it states, "Whatever personally makes the most sense to you is the iron-clad, set-in-stone, immovable law of the universe."

Occom's Razor is a handy little trick to help battle confirmation bias.  It's a reminder to help keep a person grounded.  If Occom's Razor were applied like people use it here then Quantum Physics would never have gotten off a chalk board.  It's a wonderfully puzzling wing of physics that is ridiculously counter-intuitive and not at all what's "most likely."

"Sir, this wave function collapses when observed, as if it somehow knows it's being observed."
"You're fired Johnson, we don't contradict Occom's Razor round these parts."

Are you honestly implying that there are no flat earthers that absolutely swear by Occam's Razor?

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

If you don't have numbers, then you don't have a model.  You just have opinions and opinions are not evidence.

I've never in my life seen Occam's Razor more misapplied and misunderstood than by round-earthers on this forum.  They seem to think it states, "Whatever personally makes the most sense to you is the iron-clad, set-in-stone, immovable law of the universe."

Occom's Razor is a handy little trick to help battle confirmation bias.  It's a reminder to help keep a person grounded.  If Occom's Razor were applied like people use it here then Quantum Physics would never have gotten off a chalk board.  It's a wonderfully puzzling wing of physics that is ridiculously counter-intuitive and not at all what's "most likely."

"Sir, this wave function collapses when observed, as if it somehow knows it's being observed."
"You're fired Johnson, we don't contradict Occom's Razor round these parts."

If quantum physics never got off the chalkboard then flat Earthers would have nothing to base gravity not existing off of.  Funny how that works.

I've never in my life seen Occam's Razor more misapplied and misunderstood than by round-earthers on this forum.  They seem to think it states, "Whatever personally makes the most sense to you is the iron-clad, set-in-stone, immovable law of the universe."

Occom's Razor is a handy little trick to help battle confirmation bias.  It's a reminder to help keep a person grounded.  If Occom's Razor were applied like people use it here then Quantum Physics would never have gotten off a chalk board.  It's a wonderfully puzzling wing of physics that is ridiculously counter-intuitive and not at all what's "most likely."

"Sir, this wave function collapses when observed, as if it somehow knows it's being observed."
"You're fired Johnson, we don't contradict Occom's Razor round these parts."

When quantum physics was first derived everyone involved though that it couldn't possibly be right and tried to disprove it, they didn't jump on the idea and asune it was correct.  If there was any bias involved it was cartainly not in favor of quantum physics.

Quote from: Pongo on April 08, 2015, 08:15:03 AM

I've never in my life seen Occam's Razor more misapplied and misunderstood than by round-earthers on this forum.  They seem to think it states, "Whatever personally makes the most sense to you is the iron-clad, set-in-stone, immovable law of the universe."

Occom's Razor is a handy little trick to help battle confirmation bias.  It's a reminder to help keep a person grounded.  If Occom's Razor were applied like people use it here then Quantum Physics would never have gotten off a chalk board.  It's a wonderfully puzzling wing of physics that is ridiculously counter-intuitive and not at all what's "most likely."

"Sir, this wave function collapses when observed, as if it somehow knows it's being observed."
"You're fired Johnson, we don't contradict Occom's Razor round these parts."

When quantum physics was first derived everyone involved though that it couldn't possibly be right and tried to disprove it, they didn't jump on the idea and asune it was correct.  If there was any bias involved it was cartainly not in favor of quantum physics.

Right, they tried to disprove it because (and I'm going to bold this part so you pay attention to it this time) they didn't simply discard it out of hand because it didn't seem like the most likely solution.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 08, 2015, 10:03:26 AM

When quantum physics was first derived everyone involved though that it couldn't possibly be right and tried to disprove it, they didn't jump on the idea and asune it was correct.  If there was any bias involved it was cartainly not in favor of quantum physics.

Right, they tried to disprove it because (and I'm going to bold this part so you pay attention to it this time) they didn't simply discard it out of hand because it didn't seem like the most likely solution.

Quantum mechanics wasn't discarded because, as unappealing as it was, it described observations that were not accounted for by previous theories and could be used to predict results, unexpected using only classical physics, that were found to be accurate.

Occam's Razor gives a basis to decide between competing models that describe observations equally well. Since classical physics could not adequately explain physical behavior in the realm of the very small, and quantum mechanics could, Occam's Razor does not apply.