About the "believer", not the "theories"...

  • 182 Replies
  • 41043 Views
?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 12, 2009, 11:09:17 AM »
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but I hope it won't be deleted.

In my work, I study the mentality and behavior of alleged believers of "alternative theories."  There are basically two types.  A very small minority actually believe what they say, but most don't and have at least one ulterior motive to keep professing their claims.  Usually, it's easy to understand; fame, money, perceived "respect", etc., but for some others, it is truly mysterious.  It can (and usually does) bring them great difficulty, shame, financial ruin and even criminal conviction (see Hampden v. Wallace, US v. William Nelson).  Another group that fits this profile to a tee is the "alternative health" crowd where profit is certainly the major attraction.

I find it fascinating to examine the mental processes of both sets.  If they actually believe, what causes it?  Neurological or psychological pathology could be one explanation.  Although it may be mild enough for others to miss, some just cannot hide it.  Schizophrenic-like speech is prevalent, and makes communication almost impossible.  I've met patients that would fit in perfectly here, but it would likely undermine any treatment.

Another possibility is basic emotional need.  Real science can be quite frightening to some, especially those who cannot understand (or agree with) the fundamentals of scientific study.  To think that the Universe was made especially for us by some magical super-being can be very comforting.  An intelligent beginning to our world suggests that we are all in good hands and ultimately have nothing to worry about.  Science on the other hand simply shows reality for what it is; good, bad, dangerous or not, and leaves our fate purely up to us.  Some people NEED to believe that despite all that they know, there is a hidden, magic safety net that will protect them from the scary facts of life.

I contend that in our heart of hearts, any believer not suffering from a specific condition, is in fact lying to themselves, whether they realize it or not.  I've found this to be so common that we ALL do it occasionally, just not to such an extreme.  Never underestimate a person's ability to convince themselves of something that makes life happier.  "It's not my terrible diet and lack of exercise that makes me fat, it's genetic."   Trying to debate facts with a person such as this always fails because it avoids the actual issue, which is that the believer believes rather than understands.  Belief is a personal choice that comes from inside.  Understanding comes from the reality without and is the consequential and inevitable result of a cascade of universally knowable facts.  I'm betting that like similar sites, Occam's Razor is not used much or tolerated well here at all.

This thread is NOT about details of FE theory or any other.  It's about the style of DEBATE and MENTAL STATE of believer (real or not).  Still, I'll bet a dollar that this thread gets hijacked like all the others, and the mods will do nothing.  Any takers?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 09:54:33 AM by Skeptek »
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35188
  • +1/-0
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2009, 11:50:14 AM »
That's quite an interesting take you have there, and I'd like to congratulate you for making an intelligent, rational thread.  Now, to discuss:

I find it fascinating to examine the mental processes of both sets.  If they actually believe, what causes it?  Neurological or psychological pathology could be one explanation.  Although it may be mild enough for others to miss, some just cannot hide it.  Schizophrenic-like speech is prevalent, and makes communication almost impossible.  I've met patients that would fit in perfectly here, but it would likely undermine any treatment.

I'm not a psychologist, and even I was, I highly doubt that I'd be able to diagnose a mental illness over the Internet, but I don't see FE'ers as having obvious mental issues.  Dogplatter and Username, for example, conducted interviews with the BBC, and both lead normal, productive lives.

Quote
Another possibility is basic emotional need.  Real science can be quite frightening to some, especially those who cannot understand (or agree with) the fundamentals of scientific study.  To think that the Universe was made especially for us by some magical super-being can be very comforting.  An intelligent beginning to our world suggests that we are all in good hands and ultimately have nothing to worry about.  Science on the other hand simply shows reality for what it is; good, bad, dangerous or not, and leaves our fate purely up to us.  Some people NEED to believe that despite all that they know, there is a hidden, magic safety net that will protect them from the scary facts of life.

I certainly agree with this, especially with what you're saying about religion.  But I don't see how FE'ers could really find emotional comfort from believing that the Earth is flat.  There's nothing superstitious about FET.

?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2009, 11:53:14 AM »
Belief is a personal choice that comes from inside.
I disagree. You can't choose to believe, you can only choose to pretend to believe. That's why it annoys me when people say they believe in the christian god so they don't go to hell in case it's true. However, if you have to choose to believe, then you don't really believe, you're just trying to fool "god" or yourself.

I think FE'ers are the equivalent of conspiracy theorists, since it is dependent on the largest conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard of. I think they want to feel like they are important because they must spread the truth to the entire flat world, or maybe just enlightened since they are not fooled by the great conspiracy. I started a thread that was kind of relevant not too long ago:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29417.msg708948#msg708948

I agree that it is very difficult to keep threads on topic here. Whenever faced with difficult questions, they attempt to change the subject.  RE'ers just want to prove them wrong, so they attack any argument they see as weak, even if it's not relevant to the thread's topic. This is why it is so easy for FE'ers to change the subject.

I'm not sure what kind of reply you are hoping for, but I think you would have more luck with the patients you work with. They can't help you understand what they themselves do not. At least your patients know there is something wrong with them, which I assume since they are patients, unless they have been forced into treatment.

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2009, 12:31:11 PM »
That's quite an interesting take you have there, and I'd like to congratulate you for making an intelligent, rational thread.  Now, to discuss:
OH, thank you for not hijacking it right away.  Let's see how far we can float this actual discussion.

Quote
I'm not a psychologist, and even I was, I highly doubt that I'd be able to diagnose a mental illness over the Internet, but I don't see FE'ers as having obvious mental issues.  Dogplatter and Username, for example, conducted interviews with the BBC, and both lead normal, productive lives.
You are completely correct in that nobody can diagnose over the internet.  It's not that I see obvious mental illness (not everywhere, anyway).  "Schizophrenic-like speech" only refers to an inability to maintain a cohesive and continuous train of thought in one's speech or writings.  Many people display this tendency, even those with no actual "illness."  It may be as simple as changing the subject mid-sentence or the full blown: "my dog ate my minister's car because the tin-foil hats can't punch through the frequencies..."  Ya know?

Quote
...I don't see how FE'ers could really find emotional comfort from believing that the Earth is flat.  There's nothing superstitious about FET.
Picture how utterly alone some people are.  Then picture what it's like to get messages from others that "agree" with your points of view.  Getting a reply on a forum can be a huge anchor of comfort in an otherwise lonely world (for some).  I know many people like this.  ANY group that accepts you can be a great source of friendship and community that they may not get any other way.


I disagree. You can't choose to believe, you can only choose to pretend to believe. That's why it annoys me when people say they believe in the christian god so they don't go to hell in case it's true. However, if you have to choose to believe, then you don't really believe, you're just trying to fool "god" or yourself.
This may just be semantics because I think I agree with you.  I guess I don't see much difference between "believing" as they say, and pretending to believe as we see it.

Quote
I think FE'ers are the equivalent of conspiracy theorists, since it is dependent on the largest conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard of. I think they want to feel like they are important because they must spread the truth to the entire flat world, or maybe just enlightened since they are not fooled by the great conspiracy. I started a thread that was kind of relevant not too long ago:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29417.msg708948#msg708948
[puts finger on nose]
Exactly.  There's a common thread through all conspiracy theorists, and you hit the nail on the head (or nose).

Quote
I agree that it is very difficult to keep threads on topic here. Whenever faced with difficult questions, they attempt to change the subject.  RE'ers just want to prove them wrong, so they attack any argument they see as weak, even if it's not relevant to the thread's topic. This is why it is so easy for FE'ers to change the subject.
I couldn't agree more.

Quote
I'm not sure what kind of reply you are hoping for...
These were EXACTLY the replies I hoped to get, but didn't dream I might.

Quote
... but I think you would have more luck with the patients you work with. They can't help you understand what they themselves do not. At least your patients know there is something wrong with them, which I assume since they are patients, unless they have been forced into treatment.
I don't actually work with patients so much as study them.  I am a researcher, not a clinician.  The funny thing is, most patients do NOT know there is anything different about them.  Indeed, a big part of getting better is simply recognizing that they ARE different in some way.  As they learn about themselves through treatment, they become more aware of their own condition and some are able to grow emotionally to the point where they ARE able to help us understand what mental processes brought them to the clinic to begin with.  Some of the finest psychologists & psychiatrists were and even still are patients (don't let that keep anyone from seeking professional help!).  Understanding from experience can be the most profound knowledge there is, if one has been able to overcome the limitations that experience may induce.

Thank you all so much.  I was worried that this would not be a forum I could be enthusiastic about, but perhaps I have a place here.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45121
  • +90/-132
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2009, 12:47:30 PM »
Thank you all so much.  I was worried that this would not be a forum I could be enthusiastic about, but perhaps I have a place here.

Welcome aboard.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

dyno

  • 562
  • +0/-0
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2009, 05:56:42 PM »
Well some of the FE believers are also religious and probably use one to support the other.

I think the others probably believe the Earth is flat simply because everyone else believes it is round. I imagine it gives them some inner glow when they think how stupid the rest of the population is for falling for the conspiracy and how not being sucked im themselves elevates them from the herd.
Is there some kind of psychological designation for that?

And the rest are trolls of course.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2009, 09:39:59 AM »
I'm betting that like similar sites, Occam's Razor is not used much or tolerated well here at all.

Flat Earth Theory currently explains the way that stars move across the night sky by 'layered, multiple, counter-rotating, disc-like star systems' in the sky and 'bendy light' which distorts the perspective-induced elipses back into perfect circles:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0

(Contrast this with the simple Round Earth Model of a round Earth spinning under a spherical sky that surrounds it seamlessly.)

Occam's razor is clearly just something that philosophers use to shave with!

Edit: and by "Flat Earth Theory" I mean Tom Bishop ... I think that I was trying to be generous towards his endeavours and those of his fellow Flat Earthers like Levee (who has his/her own, completely different theories about how and why stars move as they do).
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 09:48:27 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2009, 09:50:28 AM »
OK - you've got me really interested now.

What do you think about the state of mind of those "Round Earthers" like myself who engage in whole-hearted yet open-minded debate with the "Flat Earthers" around here?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2009, 10:06:32 AM »
Flat Earth Theory currently explains the way that stars move across the night sky by 'layered, multiple, counter-rotating, disc-like star systems' in the sky and 'bendy light' which distorts the perspective-induced elipses back into perfect circles:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0

(Contrast this with the simple Round Earth Model of a round Earth spinning under a spherical sky that surrounds it seamlessly.)

Occam's razor is clearly just something that philosophers use to shave with!

Edit: and by "Flat Earth Theory" I mean Tom Bishop ... I think that I was trying to be generous towards his endeavours and those of his fellow Flat Earthers like Levee (who has his/her own, completely different theories about how and why stars move as they do).
Indeed, I must agree that FE must the most complex theory I have ever seen.  It's no wonder there is no consensus about it, the various layers of complexity intertwine in a soup of contradictions that fight with each other for dominance.  It's a boiling cauldron of intersecting dots.

I picture of a room full of individuals all looking at a giant, perfectly square grid of dots.  Each of them connects some or all of the dots in a "pattern" that they claim to see.  Some of the resulting patterns are similar to one another, but almost all have differences.

From the outside, we observe an argument over the fine points and details of an overall reality that is not evident.

OK - you've got me really interested now.

What do you think about the state of mind of those "Round Earthers" like myself who engage in whole-hearted yet open-minded debate with the "Flat Earthers" around here?
What I think about those like you (and myself) is twofold.  We enjoy a good, logical debate because it stimulates mental process and keeps our minds sharp.  In addition to that, I think there is also a component that speaks to a need for the furtherance of science.  Every serious skeptic that I've witnessed engaging such issues has shown themselves to be true scientific thinkers that do not rely on fallacy to satiate their need for emotional comfort.  It is this cold, unemotional assessment of real evidence that distinguishes them.

Edit: I think the need for furthering science stems from the basic desire to contribute one's own abilities and energy to the overall progress of mankind's understanding and mastery over our universe.  We see anything that contradicts to be something that deserves effort to correct.  This can manifest in myriad ways.  One small example is casual and interesting debate about almost any issue.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 10:22:24 AM by Skeptek »
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2009, 10:55:04 AM »
I just wanted to add another thought.  I think it is safe to say that what I call "serious skeptics" share a common belief (please say if you don't) that any "conclusion" that does not come from respectful debate that is inclusive of any reasonable position is not going to be generally acceptable in the long run.

Equally so, any conclusion that includes an assertion or debate technique that isn't agreed as reasonable will be similarly rejected eventually unless independently confirmed by other parties and/or methods.

Therefore, reasonable claims and proper debate structure is required to prevent a "contaminated" and therefore irrelevant result.  It is the responsibility of anyone who truly wishes to reach an accurate conclusion to agree to and abide by some common set of debating rules.  These rules have been well established by the great thinkers of history and can be referenced from countless sources throughout published thought.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2009, 11:14:56 AM »
Therefore, reasonable claims and proper debate structure is required to prevent a "contaminated" and therefore irrelevant result.  It is the responsibility of anyone who truly wishes to reach an accurate conclusion to agree to and abide by some common set of debating rules. 

Noble sentiments indeed.

(With which I whole-heartedly concur.)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2009, 12:07:48 PM »
What would you make of someone who refuses to accept reasonable evidence which disproves their beliefs, but instead invents ever more complex reasons why they have been right all along?

For example somone might believe that the stars in the night sky (above the Flat Earth) move around on interlacing discs/gears ...

Then when challenged that this would leave areas of black sky without any stars (inbetween the discs) which nobody has ever seen ...

Goes on to say that there must, therefore, be further discs spinning away above the gaps between the original discs.

It is always hard to know, though, whether such individuals are really engaged in some sort of self-delusion, or whether they are just defending their point of view in a viagourous, academic way (as an intellectual exercise).
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2009, 12:29:38 PM »
I think there is only one way to decide "not judge" someone's veracity.  One must look carefully at their approach to the debate.

I think that some people debate to become wiser, and to possibly give others wisdom as well (show them the truth / convince them).  They may have an opinion already, but are always open to other options at some level.

I think others pretend to debate, when actually they are ONLY trying to convince and refuse to entertain any other view.

Where it gets weird is when someone is not open about their intent or not consistent in that intent.  You may get what appears to be an attempt at logical deduction and have it deteriorate into fallacy, eventually resulting in the loss of what you may have thought was common ground to work from.  If their original intent was only to convince (or became that mid-stream) then you were drawn in under false pretenses and the debate is nonproductive.

If a debater is not familiar with good debate structure, they may not be aware of it at all.  In fact, they may actually be convinced that you are only making up your own rules so you can "win."  I see this in almost every discussion involving true believers.

Adherence to an accepted debate framework is the only path to meaningful knowledge.  To avoid it is to purposely avoid knowledge.

I frequently ask myself:  "Are you trying to convince or debate?"  If I'm deviating from accepted rules, I've forfeited the debate.  I believe it's something all scientists must struggle with to remain objective, open and remain emotionally un-attached to the conclusion.  Ultimately it is the facts that decide, not us.  We merely seek to become aware of the facts in the best way possible.

Edit:  Since all human perception is imperfect, we can only compare notes with one another (debate) to determine the most likely truth.  Majority does not always work, but with good structure in scientific study as well as meaningful debate, consensus (across all mankind) is the best we have.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 12:34:17 PM by Skeptek »
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2009, 06:05:06 PM »
Well some of the FE believers are also religious and probably use one to support the other.

I think the others probably believe the Earth is flat simply because everyone else believes it is round. I imagine it gives them some inner glow when they think how stupid the rest of the population is for falling for the conspiracy and how not being sucked im themselves elevates them from the herd.
Is there some kind of psychological designation for that?

And the rest are trolls of course.
I believe that every otherwise healthy adult that subscribes to FE theory is by definition religious.  One might argue semantics about the difference between religion and philosophy, but beyond that, I don't see room within a truly scientific belief structure for FE.

Wanting to fit in is a universal human trait.  We need acceptance.  For some, it may be more difficult to find, which may make it a higher priority than the average person.  If one also has trouble with scientific deduction, that can create the proper conditions for a Grand Conspiracy theorist.  If you add emotional problems or other issues, zealous behavior of all kinds may result.

There are lots of "designations" for them.  I'd love to list my favorites here, but I don't think I've been in these boards long enough yet.  That is a good point to address.  I wonder what others think.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2009, 01:30:36 AM »
And the rest are trolls of course.

"Trolling" would explain one behaviour trait that you see all too often around here:

People making terse (unnecessarily short) answers which don't really give an explanation, but are more about "I'm clever; you're stupid; you'll have to keep asking me questions so I can drip-feed you my wisdom".

Ego massaging, if you will ...
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2009, 09:53:29 AM »
Yes.  Troll is absolutely one name that applies in an online setting.

From an overall societal point of view, there's a common personality trait of wanting to be declared right and therefore respected in a group.  It's hard to believe (or perhaps not) that a grown person would actually lie about their own beliefs just to be respected in a group.  For some, it is better to be completely dishonest about oneself than to be just another member of a non-controversial group.

I think that "proponent" should also be considered in this group.  The word describes one's desire to bring others to believe one's own stated position.  It shows that one isn't really out to learn on an individual or collective basis.  They are out to teach, to spread the word, to tip the balance, to bring legitimacy to their cause by increasing the membership.  It's not a scientific pursuit.  It's a political one.

A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides).
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2009, 10:30:18 AM »
Quote
A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides).

Like the rigid scientific evidence you guys give us for gravitons, dark matter, and bending space?

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2009, 10:33:08 AM »
No.  Not like those at all.  It's clear that you do not understand.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2009, 10:36:18 AM »
Quote
A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides

Like the rigid scientific evidence you guys give us for gravitons,

Gravitons are, at present theoretical - in the same way that atoms were theoretical to the Ancient Greeks but have since been proven.

Gravitons are, if you will, a scientific hypothesis which will probably be proved or disproved by scientific experiments in the future.

Nothing wrong in that from a scientific point-of-view.

dark matter, and bending space?

Two words: gravitational lensing.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2009, 10:43:13 AM »
If you guys knew the first thing about science, and the "Scientific Method" you would know that "Graviton Theory" fails the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method, as you will recall from class, requires one to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis.

Here's a link that should be right up your alley: http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html



As we can see, "gravitons" fails right after the first step. No experiment has ever suggested or demonstrated "gravitons".

Neither does bending space, dark matter, quintessence, the metric expansion of space, the idea of gravity holding us to the earth, or the idea of gravity forming the earth into a ball, have one tinge of experimental evidence to it.

Quote
Two words: gravitational lensing.

That would be an observation. Not an experiment. Nothing about that observation demonstrates that space is bending, gravitons are pulling in the photons, or a Newtonian force is occurring. It's an observation and a guess, which is a hypothesis. Still stuck at stage one.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 02:34:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2009, 10:47:00 AM »
Apples & oranges.

You are comparing a single, esoteric theory to an all-encompassing explanation of the universe.

Say what you will, but what you have presented does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.

You are attacking the debater rather than their position.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2009, 10:56:09 AM »
If you guys knew the first thing about science, and the "Scientific Method" you would know that "Graviton Theory" fails the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method, as you will recall from your fourth grade elementary school class, requires one to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis.

Here's a link that should be right up your alley: http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html

It has become crystal clear to me now ...

That you are not somebody who is interetsed in rational debate and the acquisition of shared knowlege ...

But that you are, instead, someone who takes a juvenille delight in saying rude, insulting or hurtful things to other people in order to feel good about himself.

So at best you are a "troll", and at worst you are a ******** and ******* bully.

As we can see, "gravitons" FAILS right after the first step. No experiment has ever suggested or demonstrated "gravitons".

It is well-known that there are four fundamental forces in The Universe:

1. Electromagnetism which is mediated by the photon
2. The strong nuclear force which is mediated by gluons
3. The weak nuclear force which is mediated by the W and Z bosons

All particles which have been discovered ...

And ..

4. Gravity which is probably mediated by an as yet undiscovered particle which has been called the graviton.

Therefore we have both experimental data and a model of "fundamental interactions" which leads us to hypothesise the existence of gravitons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

And any *real* scientist like me can see that none of the above violates any of the principles of science.

All of which is a lot of "pearls" which I am for some insane reason casting before the "swine" of you and your fanatical and ******* Flat Earth chums.

Edit: removed three uncalled-for adjectives - I got carried away and I apologise unresrevedly.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 11:55:43 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2009, 10:59:21 AM »
This is just a reminder of how off-topic this thread has gone.

The simple fact that this thread is so badly bastardized proves beyond any doubt that the participants have no desire for an actual debate.  They are side-tracking in every way possible to avoid being confronted with real science.

Very predictable, this is.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2009, 11:57:21 AM »
So at best you are a "troll", and at worst you are a ******** and ******* bully.

All of which is a lot of "pearls" which I am for some insane reason casting before the "swine" of you and your fanatical and ******* Flat Earth chums.

I have removed three uncalled-for adjectives - I got carried away and I apologise to Tom and The Flat Earth community unresrevedly.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2009, 12:04:53 PM »
Tesla,

You do that a lot (edit your posts to remove detrimental content).  I find it quite refreshing that you are one, willing to admit that you said something you regret, and two, that you always leave the evidence of your edits showing that you are also honest.

Sometimes, I have trouble admitting that I've said something inappropriate.  It takes a real gentleman to do it right out loud and in front of everyone on a consistent basis.

Personal restraint can be the hardest part of debating an issue that we feel strongly about.  What makes a good debater is the ability to keep ones emotions separated from the factual framework.  The pursuit of it makes us all better scientists and better people.

Kudos to everyone who makes the effort to be civil to one another.  That's not to say that I don't have a mean streak, but I do acknowledge that I'm not perfect, and thought that I should do so BEFORE I lose my cool.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2009, 12:13:22 PM »
Apples & oranges.

You are comparing a single, esoteric theory to an all-encompassing explanation of the universe.

Say what you will, but what you have presented does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.

You are attacking the debater rather than their position.

No. It's not just "Gravitons". It's all of it. The very concept of a Round Earth has never progressed past the hypothesis stage. Do you think Aristotle put his observations to the test? No he didn't. The Round Earth model is built on "hypothesis".

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2009, 12:16:18 PM »
The Round Earth model is built on "hypothesis".

Upon what, pray tell, is The Flat Earth Model built upon, then?

Editted for appalling grammar!

Editted further for appalling spelling!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 12:19:05 PM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2009, 12:22:47 PM »
MODERATOR!!  Where the hell are you?

By allowing every thread to be taken so far off topic, the mods are proving that this forum is NOT about serious debate.  It's about preaching the gospel of the Church of the Flat Earth.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2009, 12:29:28 PM »
The very concept of a Round Earth has never progressed past the hypothesis stage.

Oh but it has:

1. I have hypothesised that The Earth is a spinning globe set in a seamless spherical sky.

2. I have gathered evidence which agress with this hypothesis - the "star-trail" pictures.

(See http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0)

3. Therefore my hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory.

4. This theory will then stand as being true until somebody else can present evidence of an observation which does nof fit, or is not predicetd by, my original model.

That is how science works -and you can trust me because science is my job.

So Tom (or Levee): do you have any evidence that does not fit my model?

Edit: Sorry for staying off-topic, but I desperately want Tom to address the above.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2009, 12:32:06 PM »
The Round Earth model is built on "hypothesis".

Upon what, pray tell, is The Flat Earth Model built upon, then?

Editted for appalling grammar!

Editted further for appalling spelling!

It's built on experimental evidence. Please see the literature in my signature link for a wealth of it.

Oh but it has:

1. I have hypothesised that The Earth is a spinning globe set in a seamless spherical sky.

The observation of spinning stars is not evidence for a "ball earth". It's evidence for spinning stars.

Quote
2. I have gathered evidence which agress with this hypothesis - the "star-trail" pictures.

(See http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0)

3. Therefore my hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory.

Nope. The Scientific Method requires an experiment to test a hypothesis. What experiment did you conduct? An observation is not an experiment. It's an observation.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 12:41:47 PM by Tom Bishop »