The All-Powerful TGC ~ An Analysis of "Grand Conspiracies" in Logical Debate.

I think Tesla is right.  Completely trashing this thread by polluting it with irrelevant crap in only 3 posts must be some kind of record... and the moderators are nowhere.  Nice.

It has however, made this thread into a perfect example of how the FE movement as well as other Grand Conspiracy theories work to divert the debate from one subject to another, never remaining long enough to get pinned down.  By refusing to stay on any one specific topic, the poster announces to the forum that they cannot contribute in any real sense to the particular subject being discussed.

To be honest, I thought better of this crowd.  I knew there would attempts to divert and/or use the TGC, but I had no idea to what extent.

Now we did get some discussion about how Grand Conspiracy theories are constructed, which seems to be the closest it ever got back to my OP.

I'm still hoping to get some real action going about the effect of using the TGC in an alleged "scientific" debate.  Anyone care to post about THAT?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 14, 2009, 03:17:53 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 14, 2009, 02:14:36 PM

In the same vain, if there is a Conspiracy, it's plausible that the powers-that-be would want the FES to exist.  This amateur society of "enthusiasts" would be viewed by most people a bunch of lunatics who invite ridicule.  This would draw people way away from even considering a FE.

So Tom Bishop could really be working *for* the government in order to discredit Flat Earth Theory with his out-landish "gear-driven star systems" and "bendy light"?

It's possible we are from the government to discredit the flat earth theory. Perhaps we were recruited given the truth, and told to spread it. I mean on a website it would instantly be called bull, and the few believers we did get would just be enough to keep the site running.

Who knows.

The thing is, the FE theory had largely died out before this site was opened up by Daniel. The only reason for the government to create a site like this would be if a significant movement actually existed in the first place. Basically, it wouldn't make sense to create one.

In order to understand the conspiracy I need to know something.

Nasa is the reason that the FET was replaced by the RET?

Is this thing on?

Quote from: Raist on June 14, 2009, 03:22:14 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 14, 2009, 03:17:53 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 14, 2009, 02:14:36 PM

In the same vain, if there is a Conspiracy, it's plausible that the powers-that-be would want the FES to exist.  This amateur society of "enthusiasts" would be viewed by most people a bunch of lunatics who invite ridicule.  This would draw people way away from even considering a FE.

So Tom Bishop could really be working *for* the government in order to discredit Flat Earth Theory with his out-landish "gear-driven star systems" and "bendy light"?

It's possible we are from the government to discredit the flat earth theory. Perhaps we were recruited given the truth, and told to spread it. I mean on a website it would instantly be called bull, and the few believers we did get would just be enough to keep the site running.

Who knows.

The thing is, the FE theory had largely died out before this site was opened up by Daniel. The only reason for the government to create a site like this would be if a significant movement actually existed in the first place. Basically, it wouldn't make sense to create one.

Keeping an idea ridiculous is a good way to prevent it from moving into some form of religion. Think of how many kids think it is "uber cool" to "convert" to some long dead religion. There are people that are druids walking around. As long as you keep the idea of "flat earth believers" as ridiculous it biases people against accepting it.

Also the prominence of radical islam could one day lead to a resurfacing of flat earth belief like we see in the middle east.

I guess I shouldn't complain too much since it's keeping the thread active.

Nasa is the reason that the FET was replaced by the RET?

The Conspiracy has to date back as far as Scott and Amundsen and their race to "The South Pole", which dosn't exist on the Flat earth, of course.

My theory is that Scott was going to come back and say that "The South Pole" doesn't exist and The Conspiracy had him killed.

The Conspiracy might even be Satanic and as old as The World itself - a World which God created as flat because The Bible says it is:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=491.msg21898#msg21898

Quote from: lexotan on June 14, 2009, 07:34:06 PM

Nasa is the reason that the FET was replaced by the RET?

The Conspiracy has to date back as far as Scott and Amundsen and their race to "The South Pole", which dosn't exist on the Flat earth, of course.

My theory is that Scott was going to come back and say that "The South Pole" doesn't exist and The Conspiracy had him killed.

The Conspiracy might even be Satanic and as old as The World itself - a World which God created as flat because The Bible says it is:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=491.msg21898#msg21898

  I mean, the FET was widely accepted worlwide as the only truth. However, apparently the RET replaced the FET centuries before the creation of Nasa. I'm just wondering if was a pre-Nasa conspiration that persuaded the world that FET was wrong and the RET was the real deal, or if the RET replaced the FET by its own scientific merit.

  

You say about cancer causing magic held by the conspiracy being a laughable joke, but is it really any different from the superadvanced technology held by the conspiracy as claimed by FE?
Remember: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

You say about cancer causing magic held by the conspiracy being a laughable joke, but is it really any different from the superadvanced technology held by the conspiracy as claimed by FE?
Remember: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

good point

You say about cancer causing magic held by the conspiracy being a laughable joke, but is it really any different from the superadvanced technology held by the conspiracy as claimed by FE?
Remember: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

Quote from: frostee on June 15, 2009, 07:21:10 AM

You say about cancer causing magic held by the conspiracy being a laughable joke, but is it really any different from the superadvanced technology held by the conspiracy as claimed by FE?
Remember: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

So, constantly tracking the whole extension of antartica 24/7 looking for adventures  does not ask for super-advanced technology?

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 15, 2009, 07:25:46 AM

Quote from: frostee on June 15, 2009, 07:21:10 AM

You say about cancer causing magic held by the conspiracy being a laughable joke, but is it really any different from the superadvanced technology held by the conspiracy as claimed by FE?
Remember: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

So, constantly tracking the whole extension of antartica 24/7 looking for adventures  does not ask for super-advanced technology?

No, it doesn't. All it requires is the same kind of technology used to frag militants and villagers on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border every day.

Quote from: lexotan on June 15, 2009, 07:28:29 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 15, 2009, 07:25:46 AM

Quote from: frostee on June 15, 2009, 07:21:10 AM

You say about cancer causing magic held by the conspiracy being a laughable joke, but is it really any different from the superadvanced technology held by the conspiracy as claimed by FE?
Remember: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

So, constantly tracking the whole extension of antartica 24/7 looking for adventures  does not ask for super-advanced technology?

No, it doesn't. All it requires is the same kind of technology used to frag militants and villagers on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border every day.

and what would be this technology? and how come no one sees a airplane or whatever military device in there? Antartica is full of exploders and scientist.

Everyone is discussing an issue that cannot possibly have any scientific relevance.  Because each is presenting something the other will not accept, it's a never ending see-saw of "yes it is" and "no it isn't."  There is no debate here.  Just a shouting match.

If we are happy with a completely non-scientific and unstructured free-for-all, then fine, but I'm certain there are some here that have no use for such whimsy.

I've yet to hear any scientific debate in this thread whatsoever.

Since when are robots "super advanced?"  This sounds similar to creationism in that one is invoking some supernatural or fantastic explanation for something (technology in this case) that is not understood.

Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

What exactly is 'super-advanced' about the things NASA and other space agencies do? Sure it's impressive, but there's nothing that that's beyond the realm of feasibility.

Besides, the conspiracy that takes it's place in the FE model requires more impressive technological feats. Projectors to put the image of the ISS in the sky, fleets of pesudolites/stratellites, complex systems to mimic GPS and methods to make the space shuttle fly off to some distant base and back again at breakneck speeds.

Debating the probability of any Grand Conspiracy is exactly what we should NOT be doing.  It only detracts from any real scientific debate.  That's why I created this thread.

You will never get anywhere in this line of discussion because the theory is self supporting.  The fact that the conspiracy MIGHT exist is all the proof needed for a believer to think that it DOES exist.  And by using the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy"), they are declaring that their belief is NOT scientific.  Therefore, any attempt at scientific debate is pointless.

By remaining on the treadmill of conspiracy theory, you are missing the main point.

The methods used by "proponents" to debate in this forum are the proof that FE is false.  There is no scientific debate here.

Keeping an idea ridiculous is a good way to prevent it from moving into some form of religion. Think of how many kids think it is "uber cool" to "convert" to some long dead religion. There are people that are druids walking around. As long as you keep the idea of "flat earth believers" as ridiculous it biases people against accepting it.

I have to admit that this site is doing a darned good job of doing just that.  Keep up the good work.

Indeed.

This site could stand as an example to other Grand Conspiracy groups.  These members have finely honed their ability to dodge debate, and keep the water murky.

By doing this, they guarantee that the theory will never become truth AND never be disproved within their framework of corrupted debate.  This covers the "been around for a long time" requirement.  If any conclusions were ever drawn, the potential for the controversy to dissipate is increased.  Without controversy, where can one find drama in ones' life?

It is the very fact that others find the belief so controversial that makes it so attractive to those that "believe."

Quote

Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

What exactly is 'super-advanced' about the things NASA and other space agencies do? Sure it's impressive, but there's nothing that that's beyond the realm of feasibility.

Besides, the conspiracy that takes it's place in the FE model requires more impressive technological feats. Projectors to put the image of the ISS in the sky, fleets of pesudolites/stratellites, complex systems to mimic GPS and methods to make the space shuttle fly off to some distant base and back ag ain at breakneck speeds.

+1

Actually, I still don't quite understand why the conspiracy bothers to fake the shape of the world.

 I mean, for money? I'm sure with all the money they spend to maintain the conspiracy they could invest in a more profitable business that doesn't require a massive sum of money for bribes, faking all earth's pictures, defending the entire antartica continent, assassination, misguiding the scientific community, etc etc.

I don't think that Nasa is that profitable. So, why they do this?

no one?

and what would be this technology? and how come no one sees a airplane or whatever military device in there? Antartica is full of exploders and scientist.

Global Hawk flies at about 65,000 feet, and is only the size of a jet fighter- maybe a little smaller in the body, larger in wingspan. How in the hell would you be able to see it from the ground?

Please don't pollute this thread with grand conspiracy debate.  That's not what it's about.

Understanding my OP shows that no such debate can ever actually exist within it's own context.  It is an exercise in futility.

I thought I would post this here since it is an interesting example of the typical exchange.  I've stripped it of any words that might SEEM to mean anything because none of them actually do.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 16, 2009, 10:18:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2009, 09:41:59 AM

Quote

Dude, the **** was in **** - a long time after **** and ****.

The **** took place between **** and ****, which means that the **** occurred during the ****. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that **** had been **** it since ****, one year after ****'s first ****.

All of which was a long time after **** and **** went into ****.

Both of those ****s were carried out independently of ****.

There was no **** at that stage,the height of The **** - that's whay they called it The ****.

Plus the **** from both **** would have been **** around the **** by **** from many ****.

Ok.  I'm asking REAL nice now.  Please don't feed the troll any more.

I'd bet that a smart programmer could create an application that would generate just such a transcript at random and nobody would be able to distinguish it from a real one.

You can give someone cancer by putting carcinogens in their home (radiation, ultra-high levels of BPA, any number of pest poisons).

Debating the probability of any Grand Conspiracy is exactly what we should NOT be doing.  It only detracts from any real scientific debate.  That's why I created this thread.

You created this thread to troll.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 15, 2009, 10:18:07 AM

Debating the probability of any Grand Conspiracy is exactly what we should NOT be doing.  It only detracts from any real scientific debate.  That's why I created this thread.

You created this thread to troll.

Showing a flaw in logical reasoning isn't trolling.
Not accepting a bullsh*t argument for what it is, however, is trolling.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 19, 2009, 08:20:43 PM

Quote from: Skeptek on June 15, 2009, 10:18:07 AM

Debating the probability of any Grand Conspiracy is exactly what we should NOT be doing.  It only detracts from any real scientific debate.  That's why I created this thread.

You created this thread to troll.

Showing a flaw in logical reasoning isn't trolling.
Not accepting a bullsh*t argument for what it is, however, is trolling.

Right.  You make a thread that purports to be about grand conspiracies, and how they apply to this forum, but if a FEer brings up our grand conspiracy they are going off topic or trolling.  To be honest it's really not even all that clever and I feel sorry for those who have already fallen for it.

Quote from: mazty88 on June 20, 2009, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 19, 2009, 08:20:43 PM

Quote from: Skeptek on June 15, 2009, 10:18:07 AM

Debating the probability of any Grand Conspiracy is exactly what we should NOT be doing.  It only detracts from any real scientific debate.  That's why I created this thread.

You created this thread to troll.

Showing a flaw in logical reasoning isn't trolling.
Not accepting a bullsh*t argument for what it is, however, is trolling.

Right.  You make a thread that purports to be about grand conspiracies, and how they apply to this forum, but if a FEer brings up our grand conspiracy they are going off topic or trolling.  To be honest it's really not even all that clever and I feel sorry for those who have already fallen for it.

There's number 9 on the "Tools of The Debate Impostor" list once again.  This thread is not "about grand conspiracies" in any way that involves discussing the theories themselves.  It's only about how using any one as an argument is proof of pseudoscience.

But then... you knew that didn't you?  The "Tools of The Debate Impostor" are the favored tactics for getting off-topic and Number 9 is a Doozy!  Well executed, but not very creative.