It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments

  • 14 Replies
  • 2205 Views
It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« on: October 18, 2007, 12:13:25 PM »
Why can proponents of FE who distrust the government reference gov. studies or documents in their argument. I was browsing some lists and it's highly prevenlent to see a argument that references some .gov study or website. Sounds crazy...

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2007, 04:04:35 PM »
Its fair because the opposition trusts the source. 
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2007, 04:37:57 PM »
Its fair because the opposition trusts the source. 

That's just dumb logic....if you have your own sources and theories you should present them, not use established theories in ways they are not designed to.

And why doesn't experimental science have any proof of these FE claims. Shouldn't thousands of scientists be complaining that things are not as they seem?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2007, 05:10:05 PM »
If you were to argue against me would it be unreasonable for you to cite Rowbotham's work to point out inconsistencies?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2007, 06:32:04 PM »
Yarbsea's right. If you want to argue for your own theory, you should only use your own work.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2007, 06:36:06 PM »
Yes, let's bring up more redundant and unproductive ideas. I'm sorry, but this logic works against everyone, not just FE.

And to the OP, where are these FE arguments that are using .gov sources?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2007, 06:38:41 PM »
Yes, let's bring up more redundant and unproductive ideas. I'm sorry, but this logic works against everyone, not just FE.

Isn't the FE theory itself already redundant?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2007, 06:42:18 PM »
The theory itself isn't redundant, but the act of the debate in one versus the other is.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2007, 07:43:07 PM »
Its crazy to say new scientific theories can't draw off old ones. 
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2007, 03:53:59 AM »
it's equally crazy to say inaccurate and wrong theories replace ones that easily explain the phenomena we see every day.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2007, 11:17:48 AM »
it's equally crazy to say inaccurate and wrong theories replace ones that easily explain the phenomena we see every day.
We aren't attempting the replace the theory ( at least I'm not ) until ours is complete...
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17720
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2007, 11:21:28 AM »
Quote
it's equally crazy to say inaccurate and wrong theories replace ones that easily explain the phenomena we see every day.

I see phenomena every day I look outside my window which indicates a Flat Earth.

What phenomena do you see every day which indicates a round one?

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2007, 01:01:15 PM »
I see phenomena every day I look outside my window which indicates a Flat Earth.

What phenomena do you see every day which indicates a round one?

What a kick in the ass argument. This entire belief systems rests here. On this one statement.

In the end, doesn't it all boil down to one idea? You've set up a theoretical world where any phenomena I might bring up can be called invalid under the guise of a massive conspiracy. I found this site yesterday, and have been reading through it with great interest and entertainment. I love this stuff. What has become ultimately clear to me is this:

Any "factual" statement a RE proponent makes is dismissed. The reason for the dismissal? All the "facts" that support RE are either directly or indirectly a result of a "conspiracy." That is the nature of the discussion.

As far as I've read, there is only one single phenomena that Tom Bishop keeps coming back to in support of the ENTIRE idea. That is to say, if it weren't for this one, single phenomena, RE principles would perfectly explain the behavior of the world. That phenomena is that he can walk to the beach on one side of Monterey Bay and, using a telescope, supposedly make out people doing various things on another beach, double-digit miles away. This claim has peaked my curiosity, and I've decided that the first chance I get, I will perform this experiment myself.

But as near as I can tell, all other "science" at work in FE theory is almost mythical in its attempt to explain the workings of the universe. I'm sorry, but for someone just stepping in on the conversation, I can't help but feel that all the "scientific" reasonings for the various phenomena in our world (sun rising/setting, phases of the moon, the observable properties of celestial bodies) in FE theory leave so many questions unanswered. Questions pertaining to why. For instance, what is the UA? I mean that in the philosophical sense, not the physical one. What is causing it to accelerate? Is it God? Also, the "laws of perspective" showing that, as we look further into the distance, the image we experience is not simply smaller than if it were up close, it is also distorted. Here is Tom Bishop's response:

Quote
Gotcha. That's an observation you'd expect from the finite horizon on a Round Earth, can you post an explanation for it on occuring FE that does not entirely consist of hand-waving?
As for why or how come, those questions are unanswerable. That's just the way things are.

It appears to me that points like this are rampant on this site.

If nothing else, one thing can be said for sure about all this. Flat earth theory is not a scientific idea.

It is, at it's heart, a conspiracy theory.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2007, 01:09:40 PM »
Its crazy to say new scientific theories can't draw off old ones. 

So, you're saying an theory like the FE theory can still use theories/facts that explains an RE to back it up?

Either way, the FE theory is not even a scientific theory/fact/idea; it's just a believe.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: It's not fair to reference .gov documents in arguments
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2007, 03:27:23 PM »
Yes. It will never be a theorise.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.