Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?

  • 168 Replies
  • 30738 Views
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #150 on: November 23, 2011, 03:47:14 PM »
A flat surface can neither heat nor cool. Therefore, global lukewarming is occuring.
Y'all be trippin'

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #151 on: November 23, 2011, 07:12:34 PM »
A flat surface can neither heat nor cool. Therefore, global lukewarming is occuring.

Explain

Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #152 on: November 24, 2011, 07:50:48 AM »
A flat surface can neither heat nor cool. Therefore, global lukewarming is occuring.

Explain

Prove me wrong.
Y'all be trippin'

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #153 on: November 24, 2011, 08:38:30 AM »
A flat surface can neither heat nor cool. Therefore, global lukewarming is occuring.

Explain

Prove me wrong.

You haven't provided any evidence to disprove.
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.

Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #154 on: November 24, 2011, 05:03:15 PM »
A flat surface can neither heat nor cool. Therefore, global lukewarming is occuring.

Explain

Prove me wrong.

You haven't provided any evidence to disprove.

"A flat surface can neither heat nor cool."
That is my evidence.
My claim is that global lukewarming is occuring.
Y'all be trippin'

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #155 on: November 24, 2011, 08:47:01 PM »
"A flat surface can neither heat nor cool."
That is my evidence.

No, that's a claim.  You need to provide evidence that it's correct (you won't be able to because it isn't, obviously) before you can justifiably use it to make another claim.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #156 on: November 25, 2011, 12:55:15 PM »
How is it a claim as opposed to evidence?
Y'all be trippin'

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #157 on: November 25, 2011, 02:42:01 PM »
How is it a claim as opposed to evidence?

We don't demand that you have the same level of scientific understanding as we do to post here, but we do at least appreciate a basic understanding of English vocabulary.  Come back when you've got a better grasp on it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #158 on: November 25, 2011, 03:15:27 PM »
You seem to be criticising me
I am not criticising you. I am pointing out an amusing fact.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #159 on: November 25, 2011, 04:23:04 PM »
How is it a claim as opposed to evidence?

A claim is that a flat surface can neither heat nor cool.  Evidence is explaining why flat surfaces can neither heat not cool.  Evidence that' your claim is not true can be found in just about any kitchen.
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.

Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #160 on: November 25, 2011, 04:51:26 PM »
Touche.
Y'all be trippin'

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #161 on: November 26, 2011, 06:16:11 AM »
Holding unorthodox beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and throwing out centuries of repeatable experimental and observational evidence in order to do so, very much equates to stupidity.
So global warming believers and religious people are stupid? Well, that makes it a bit easier, since now we can dismiss the majority of the world as possible authorities on anything.

If there is overwhelming evidence against global warming, then to believe it is stupid.
If there is overwhelming evidence against a religion's teachings, then to believe it is stupid.
If there is overwhelming evidence against anything, then to believe it is stupid.
If you disagree, give an example of something there is overwhelming evidence for that is provably false. It can't be done, because the existence of overwhelming evidence is only possible if something is not false.
Newton's Law of Gravity, Relativity, The Standard Model
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #162 on: November 26, 2011, 06:47:51 AM »
Holding unorthodox beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and throwing out centuries of repeatable experimental and observational evidence in order to do so, very much equates to stupidity.
So global warming believers and religious people are stupid? Well, that makes it a bit easier, since now we can dismiss the majority of the world as possible authorities on anything.

If there is overwhelming evidence against global warming, then to believe it is stupid.
If there is overwhelming evidence against a religion's teachings, then to believe it is stupid.
If there is overwhelming evidence against anything, then to believe it is stupid.
If you disagree, give an example of something there is overwhelming evidence for that is provably false. It can't be done, because the existence of overwhelming evidence is only possible if something is not false.
Newton's Law of Gravity, Relativity, The Standard Model

Oh, I get it! You're making a joke by saying things that are true!
Y'all be trippin'

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #163 on: November 26, 2011, 09:41:47 AM »
Holding unorthodox beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and throwing out centuries of repeatable experimental and observational evidence in order to do so, very much equates to stupidity.
So global warming believers and religious people are stupid? Well, that makes it a bit easier, since now we can dismiss the majority of the world as possible authorities on anything.

If there is overwhelming evidence against global warming, then to believe it is stupid.
If there is overwhelming evidence against a religion's teachings, then to believe it is stupid.
If there is overwhelming evidence against anything, then to believe it is stupid.
If you disagree, give an example of something there is overwhelming evidence for that is provably false. It can't be done, because the existence of overwhelming evidence is only possible if something is not false.
Newton's Law of Gravity, Relativity, The Standard Model

Oh, I get it! You're making a joke by saying things that are true!
Newton's directly contradicts the equations of relativity and vice versa.  The standard model does not accurately explain relativistic interactions and vice versa.  They are all obviously not all true, or we would have a ToE.  They are obviously each incorrect as they have direct contradictions to them in experimentation and data as well as large areas where they do or do not apply.  Each has overwhelming evidence for it, and they all can't be true.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #164 on: November 26, 2011, 12:19:36 PM »
Newton's directly contradicts the equations of relativity and vice versa.  The standard model does not accurately explain relativistic interactions and vice versa.  They are all obviously not all true, or we would have a ToE.  They are obviously each incorrect as they have direct contradictions to them in experimentation and data as well as large areas where they do or do not apply.  Each has overwhelming evidence for it, and they all can't be true.

Actually, they can contradict each other and still be right, within certain parameters.  Newtonian mechanics can be true when relativistic issues are of no concern, the Standard Model can be true at subatomic scales and GR can be true at macroscopic scales.  None of these theories are considered to be a ToE but are very useful within their respective domains.  Now String Theory (or M Theory as some call it) is a different story.
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.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #165 on: November 26, 2011, 01:09:10 PM »
Newton's directly contradicts the equations of relativity and vice versa.  The standard model does not accurately explain relativistic interactions and vice versa.  They are all obviously not all true, or we would have a ToE.  They are obviously each incorrect as they have direct contradictions to them in experimentation and data as well as large areas where they do or do not apply.  Each has overwhelming evidence for it, and they all can't be true.

Actually, they can contradict each other and still be right, within certain parameters.  Newtonian mechanics can be true when relativistic issues are of no concern, the Standard Model can be true at subatomic scales and GR can be true at macroscopic scales.  None of these theories are considered to be a ToE but are very useful within their respective domains.  Now String Theory (or M Theory as some call it) is a different story.
So Newton mechanics can be true within a falsehood?  Thats perhaps useful, but it says nothing to the point or its actual validity.

The standard model and GR can both be true at macroscopic scales, perhaps, but they are not at present time. 

String theory is the movement of science away from hard science and into pure zeteticism due to its constant hatred (from social and political concerns) of the philosophy that supposedly backs science.

Obviously they are useful in their domain.  The clear point was that this is irrelevant as it is not the "truth" of the matter, but the truth up to our understanding.  If any of these theories were true it is likely that we would have little need for science at all.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #166 on: December 01, 2011, 07:47:11 PM »
Newton's directly contradicts the equations of relativity and vice versa.  The standard model does not accurately explain relativistic interactions and vice versa.  They are all obviously not all true, or we would have a ToE.  They are obviously each incorrect as they have direct contradictions to them in experimentation and data as well as large areas where they do or do not apply.  Each has overwhelming evidence for it, and they all can't be true.

Actually, they can contradict each other and still be right, within certain parameters.  Newtonian mechanics can be true when relativistic issues are of no concern, the Standard Model can be true at subatomic scales and GR can be true at macroscopic scales.  None of these theories are considered to be a ToE but are very useful within their respective domains.  Now String Theory (or M Theory as some call it) is a different story.
So Newton mechanics can be true within a falsehood?  Thats perhaps useful, but it says nothing to the point or its actual validity.

The standard model and GR can both be true at macroscopic scales, perhaps, but they are not at present time. 

String theory is the movement of science away from hard science and into pure zeteticism due to its constant hatred (from social and political concerns) of the philosophy that supposedly backs science.

Obviously they are useful in their domain.  The clear point was that this is irrelevant as it is not the "truth" of the matter, but the truth up to our understanding.  If any of these theories were true it is likely that we would have little need for science at all.

Actually, string theory is about as far away as you can get from zeteticism. The principles behind it don't come from any physical observations, it is entirely (at least right now) within the realm of mathematics.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8744
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #167 on: December 01, 2011, 08:57:47 PM »
I completely agree with this. String theory is the natural heir to the Pythagorean number cult. An interesting mathematical construct with no interest in reconciling this systemic-belief with observation. It makes no predictions, only claims that it is "elegant". So was Pythagorean cosmology, but I find it no more compelling.
I consider most such talk (brane cosmology, M-theory, etc) a vain attempt to reconcile our unlikely Anthropic position without invoking a deity.
"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.."

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Okay, so, I'm probably just getting trolled. Right?
« Reply #168 on: December 03, 2011, 05:13:33 PM »
I use "pure zeteticism" as an attempt to point out that it attempts to talk mathematically about a  set of phenomenae without real concern about the mechanisms involved, save from colourful commentary in paperbacks.  Its a model made to describe data and not curiousity, and in that way, its zetetic.'  It is also much of a movement against the philosophical backings of science and in many ways this movement shares parallels with zeteticism.

In a much more definitive way, it is clearly not 'purely zetetic'.  I should have stated what I meant.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 05:15:57 PM by John Davis »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.