so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?

  • 115 Replies
  • 18865 Views
?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2008, 12:42:33 PM »
That's the problem though, it IS the only way it can be.

Let me break it down simply for you...

Take the amount of people who work either for NASA or some other space, or geological, or atmosphearic industries (oh, and throw in electrical enginers and GPS companies just for fun). Now, subtract the amount of people just in those areas that are involved in the conspiracy.

I don't know how many people work in those combined areas but I'm going to guess the number is pretty high. Significactly high in fact, even after removing the people who are keeping FE a secret. Just that fact alone makes it a mathmatic improbability, combined with chaos theory it becomes impossible.

I'll break it down into small scale now:

3 people cannot keep a large secret from each other - i.e. married man has an affair, wife WILL (for the most part) find out (it's only a matter of time), usually due to a silly mistake from the husband.

That's 2 people trying to keep one secret from one person, very difficult to do.

Try this, one person cannot keep a secret from many people. I'll explain:

Murder. Do I need to spell this out? Two people know something, one is killed by the other, people investigate, eventually the murderer gets caught. He can't hide all of the evidence of the crime all of the time from all of the experts.

Take those examples and expand them to include the industries I described before, now apply the same rules but make all of the people smarter and harder working. Their job usually consists of defining, refining, explaining, discovering and other '-ings' that scientists and enginers do. They are TRYING to find out secrets.

Even a few people cannot hide a secret this large from many people who are trained to think outside of the box.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 12:46:17 PM by TheA1pha0mega »

?

twopointseventwo

Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2008, 12:44:08 PM »
Apparently, I am part of the conspiracy as well.

After backing an FEer into the corner on a debate, he threw this at me:

You're clearly a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild spreading propoganda to further delude the masses.

I'm dead serious. Read the thread about the space race in D&D.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2008, 12:50:02 PM »
Apparently, I am part of the conspiracy as well.

After backing an FEer into the corner on a debate, he threw this at me:

You're clearly a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild spreading propoganda to further delude the masses.

I'm dead serious. Read the thread about the space race in D&D.

Either a plant or extremely obtuse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

twopointseventwo

Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2008, 12:55:42 PM »
Apparently, I am part of the conspiracy as well.

After backing an FEer into the corner on a debate, he threw this at me:

You're clearly a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild spreading propoganda to further delude the masses.

I'm dead serious. Read the thread about the space race in D&D.

Either a plant or extremely obtuse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt...

Every single point you made was completely demolished. You have no valid counter argument to my rebuttal's. Instead of concerning yourself with things like LOGIC and EVIDENCE, you would rather just throw an insult at me and call me obtuse.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2008, 12:57:23 PM »
Instead of concerning yourself with things like LOGIC and EVIDENCE, you would rather just throw an insult at me and call me obtuse.

Well, you did take him seriously.  Yeah, that's pretty obtuse.

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2008, 12:59:00 PM »
That's the problem though, it IS the only way it can be.

*more hypothetical crap that I think somehow proves my point*


You're still doing it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2008, 01:27:07 PM »
Hijack threads much, twopointseventwo? Just kidding.  ;)

Roundy, you seem to be missing the point. Granted, I'm arguing against something that is the cornerstone of FE belief so I really don't expect to get anywhere. I'm just trying to figure out how to rationalize a conspiracy of this magnitude?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2008, 02:02:03 PM »
I know. It's mind blowing they've gotten away with it this long.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2008, 02:04:48 PM »
Well, until you can come up with some type of identifiable proof, my argument stands. Occam's Razor, baby.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2008, 02:15:55 PM »
Quote
Occam's Razor, baby.

But Occam's Razor works in favor of a Conspiracy.  ???

What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive spaceships into the cosmos, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't pull off all of those technological marvels and it's all just a lie?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 02:23:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2008, 02:21:25 PM »
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2008, 02:23:20 PM »
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.

First off, Occam's Razor never "proves" anything. Secondly, you can say that despite all direct observation of a flat earth (go outside), it IS possible there is a round earth that just isn't perceptible, but which is more likely?

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

twopointseventwo

Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2008, 02:25:45 PM »
Quote
Occam's Razor, baby.

But Occam's Razor works in favor of a Conspiracy.  ???

Except it doesn't. Occam's Razor selects the better theory based on how many hypothetical entities are present in each respective theory.

FET is chocked full of hypothetical entities; dark shadow objects, a dark energy source beneath the earth; a huge conspiracy; all things with 0 evidence.

What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive spacecraft into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a lie?

You've never ever been able to prove space travel is impossible. RE theory is the simplest explanation because it accounts for all the data we have without invoking super - hypothetical entities. Actually, it is the only explanation because FET cannot even account for all the data we have.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #43 on: April 28, 2008, 02:26:32 PM »
Quote
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.

Five hundred years ago the widespread belief was that witches were the cause for crop failures and bad luck.

Did witches exist five hundred years ago?  ???

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #44 on: April 28, 2008, 02:27:35 PM »
That's not the point. You can try to use an anti-razor argument and say that "if 3 explinations cannot provide proof, a 4th must be added" but that's not what we're talking about. Without a conspiracy, FE has no proof, and nothing to go off of. If there is no conspiracy, the moon landing, mars rover, satellights, spaceflight and the Hubble are all real.

Occam's razor is against this theory, which is also mathmatically and sociologically improbably. Take into count chaos theory, and the conspiracy is impossible.

The conspiracy doesn't exist. FE is a lie.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #45 on: April 28, 2008, 02:28:38 PM »
Occam's Razor cannot be used to prove anything.  It is a philosophical concept, not a scientific law.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #46 on: April 28, 2008, 02:28:48 PM »
Quote
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.

Five hundred years ago the widespread belief was that witches were the cause for crop failures and bad luck.

Did witches exist five hundred years ago?  ???

They did, they still do. They just don't cause crop failures.

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #47 on: April 28, 2008, 02:28:51 PM »
Did witches exist five hundred years ago?  ???

I have no doubt about it considering I spent a good portion of my life as a Wiccan.

Double fail.

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #48 on: April 28, 2008, 02:30:19 PM »
Quote
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.


*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #49 on: April 28, 2008, 02:30:41 PM »
Did witches exist five hundred years ago?  ???

I have no doubt about it considering I spent a good portion of my life as a Wiccan.

Double fail.

LOL.  Wicca is a fake religion that originated in the early 20th century.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #50 on: April 28, 2008, 02:31:19 PM »
Quote
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.


Note how this proves my point.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

TheA1pha0mega

  • 175
  • But it's on the UN flag! That makes it real right?
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2008, 02:33:19 PM »
Actually, you're right about the modern definition of Wicca, however it finds it roots in pagan religions from thousands of years ago. Thanks.

Also, I fail to see how your point was proved. Occam's Razor is used as a rule of thumb to guide scientific theory.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2008, 02:34:15 PM »
Actually, you're right about the modern definition of Wicca, however it finds it roots in pagan religions from thousands of years ago. Thanks.

Also, I fail to see how your point was proved. Occam's Razor is used as a rule of thumb to guide scientific theory.

Where did it say in your quote that it can be used to prove anything?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

twopointseventwo

Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2008, 02:43:44 PM »
Quote
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.


It's also important to point out that FET is not an equivalent to RET when it comes to explaining the data, so Occam's Razor need not even apply.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2008, 02:49:18 PM »
Quote
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.


It's also important to point out that FET is not an equivalent to RET when it comes to explaining the data, so Occam's Razor need not even apply.

Good going.  Just ignore my point altogether.  ::)
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2008, 02:53:01 PM »
Good going.  Just ignore my point altogether.  ::)

The irony between the accusations he's made and the way he picks and chooses his data and observations is stunning, no?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

twopointseventwo

Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2008, 02:53:45 PM »
Quote
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.


It's also important to point out that FET is not an equivalent to RET when it comes to explaining the data, so Occam's Razor need not even apply.

Good going.  Just ignore my point altogether.  ::)

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

Please explain what you mean by proving a theory. This is not possible. Proof only happens in mathematics. In science, we are able to VALIDATE hypothesis with EVIDENCE-- of course, this is something that FEers have never been successful at.

?

twopointseventwo

Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2008, 02:55:11 PM »
Good going.  Just ignore my point altogether.  ::)

The irony between the accusations he's made and the way he picks and chooses his data and observations is stunning, no?


Please share, Ski.

What data am I ignoring?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #58 on: April 28, 2008, 02:55:54 PM »

Please explain what you mean by proving a theory. This is not possible. Proof only happens in mathematics. In science, we are able to VALIDATE hypothesis with EVIDENCE-- of course, this is something that FEers have never been successful at.


This is exactly what I mean.  Occam's Razor does not qualify as EVIDENCE, therefore it cannot be used to VALIDATE anything.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2008, 02:59:56 PM »
Getting back on topic, see this thread for a reasoned analysis of how many people really need to be in on the conspiracy.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?