Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

  • 26 Replies
  • 5783 Views
*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« on: March 25, 2010, 09:49:09 AM »
For a theory to be truly scientific, it must be tested to see if it is false (true tests attempt to falsify the thoery rather then prove it.

Robowtham actually followed this correctly for RET, even if his math was flawed (he over-estimated the curvature of the earth, as RET says the curve of the earth is far less then the curve he clearly showed did not exist).

So I will be converted to FET if FE'ers make a valiant effort to disprove their own theory with various tests and fail to do so.

Likewise us RE'ers should make valiant efforts to disprove our own theory, and if we fail to do so, that brings us one step closer to showing the truth of our theory.


?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2010, 12:52:44 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that). We however do not need to try to disprove our own theories, FE'rs do a great job at that. 

This is all besides the point since the burden of proof lies on the RE'rs shoulders.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2010, 01:02:22 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that).

Not really.
We however do not need to try to disprove our own theories, FE'rs do a great job at that.

What?

For one you're saying FE'ers disprove their own theories.

And even if you were saying RE'ers are doing a great job, you're admitting that we are doing a great job of arguing our theory.

So thanks.
This is all besides the point since the burden of proof lies on the RE'rs shoulders.

Actually, it doesn't.  

To make a theory scientifically valid it is the burden of the scientific community as a whole to attempt to disprove it.  The same goes for RET.

There is no burden of proof.  There is a universal burden of disproof.
 




?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2010, 01:22:03 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that).

Not really.
Clearly you didn't search...

We however do not need to try to disprove our own theories, FE'rs do a great job at that.

What?
I don't need to try in vain to disprove FE, the RE'rs already have done that and so far failed.

This is all besides the point since the burden of proof lies on the RE'rs shoulders.

Actually, it doesn't. 

To make a theory scientifically valid it is the burden of the scientific community as a whole to attempt to disprove it.  The same goes for RET.

There is no burden of proof.  There is a universal burden of disproof.

Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2010, 01:30:03 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that).

Not really.
Clearly you didn't search...

We however do not need to try to disprove our own theories, FE'rs do a great job at that.

What?
I don't need to try in vain to disprove FE, the RE'rs already have done that and so far failed.

This is all besides the point since the burden of proof lies on the RE'rs shoulders.

Actually, it doesn't. 

To make a theory scientifically valid it is the burden of the scientific community as a whole to attempt to disprove it.  The same goes for RET.

There is no burden of proof.  There is a universal burden of disproof.

Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

Okay you need to work on remembering whether you're talking about FE'ers or Re'ers.  You keep typing FE when it seems like you mean RE or vice versa and it muddies your entire point.

I really want to critically respond to your post.  Really.  But I can't if I can't work out who you're talking about.

And you're also one of the debaters that greatly restricts themselves by considering RET as disproven form the get go.

Newsflash:  All FET has done is prevent counter-theories.  None of them have been shown to  be superior to RET yet.  ENaG was the closest attempt to do that, but Rowbotham's math was wrong.


I also have no idea what you're saying in relation to the "community" statement, mainly as a result of your aforementioned name trouble.  So I'll respond to that if you can fix that statement to make it so I know what you're talking about.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2010, 01:57:57 PM »
Quote
Newsflash:  All FET has done is prevent counter-theories.  None of them have been shown to  be superior to RET yet.  ENaG was the closest attempt to do that, but Rowbotham's math was wrong.

Actually, it wasn't.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2010, 02:05:09 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that).

Not really.
Clearly you didn't search...

We however do not need to try to disprove our own theories, FE'rs do a great job at that.

What?
I don't need to try in vain to disprove FE, the RE'rs already have done that and so far failed.

This is all besides the point since the burden of proof lies on the RE'rs shoulders.

Actually, it doesn't. 

To make a theory scientifically valid it is the burden of the scientific community as a whole to attempt to disprove it.  The same goes for RET.

There is no burden of proof.  There is a universal burden of disproof.

Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

Okay you need to work on remembering whether you're talking about FE'ers or Re'ers.  You keep typing FE when it seems like you mean RE or vice versa and it muddies your entire point.

I really want to critically respond to your post.  Really.  But I can't if I can't work out who you're talking about.

And you're also one of the debaters that greatly restricts themselves by considering RET as disproven form the get go.

Newsflash:  All FET has done is prevent counter-theories.  None of them have been shown to  be superior to RET yet.  ENaG was the closest attempt to do that, but Rowbotham's math was wrong.


I also have no idea what you're saying in relation to the "community" statement, mainly as a result of your aforementioned name trouble.  So I'll respond to that if you can fix that statement to make it so I know what you're talking about.

There is no name trouble in my post. I meant what I typed.

You simply wish there was something in my post to debase. However, there isn't. So instead, you fabricate something.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2010, 02:39:09 PM »
Quote
Newsflash:  All FET has done is prevent counter-theories.  None of them have been shown to  be superior to RET yet.  ENaG was the closest attempt to do that, but Rowbotham's math was wrong.

Actually, it wasn't.

Rowbotham's problem is often referred to as GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).  His math may have been correct, but his physics were wrong.  For instance, he thought that an object thrown into the air would expend all of it's forward motion at the apex of it's trajectory.
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.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2010, 02:43:45 PM »
Quote
Newsflash:  All FET has done is prevent counter-theories.  None of them have been shown to  be superior to RET yet.  ENaG was the closest attempt to do that, but Rowbotham's math was wrong.

Actually, it wasn't.

Actually it was.

If you look up the estimations for the curvature of the Earth which RET theory espouses you'll find they are far different from Rowbowtham's calculations.

Rowbowtham succeeded in disproving "a" round earth.  But not "the" round earth.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 02:46:12 PM »
Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

So you and all the other FE'ers have made active efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

On the same taken I encourage RE'ers to attempt to disprove RET and if they fail to do so, that can be interpreted as proof of its validity.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2010, 04:03:11 PM »
Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

So you and all the other FE'ers have made active efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

On the same taken I encourage RE'ers to attempt to disprove RET and if they fail to do so, that can be interpreted as proof of its validity.

You seemed to miss "as a "community"".
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2010, 04:27:09 PM »
Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

So you and all the other FE'ers have made active efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

On the same taken I encourage RE'ers to attempt to disprove RET and if they fail to do so, that can be interpreted as proof of its validity.

So all of you FE'ers and us RE'ers as a community made active and collaborative efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2010, 05:53:28 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2010, 06:26:24 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

If only it were so easy right?

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2010, 08:54:06 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2010, 09:32:54 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2010, 10:12:25 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.
I'm still not convinced you've done any form of research.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2010, 10:56:51 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.
I'm still not convinced you've done any form of research.

I'm not the one making the claims here.  You've made the claim that the earth is flat, so I'm asking you to back it up since you are the claimant in this case.

If I had been going around claiming the earth was round in the same argumentative sense you have been, I would present research.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2010, 12:13:17 AM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.
I'm still not convinced you've done any form of research.

I'm not the one making the claims here.  You've made the claim that the earth is flat, so I'm asking you to back it up since you are the claimant in this case.

If I had been going around claiming the earth was round in the same argumentative sense you have been, I would present research.

I have, however I don't feel like restating it every time some angry newb wants it. It's on this forum, I'm sure you're smart enough to find it.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2010, 12:27:33 AM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.
I'm still not convinced you've done any form of research.

I'm not the one making the claims here.  You've made the claim that the earth is flat, so I'm asking you to back it up since you are the claimant in this case.

If I had been going around claiming the earth was round in the same argumentative sense you have been, I would present research.

I have, however I don't feel like restating it every time some angry newb wants it. It's on this forum, I'm sure you're smart enough to find it.

I should try using the "I'm tired of providing research" in my biology lab next week.  I'm sure I'll get a great grade on that lab report.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2010, 10:22:48 AM »
You make a poor analogy. The info is up, you just have to quit being lazy and retrieve it.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2010, 10:37:28 AM »
You make a poor analogy. The info is up, you just have to quit being lazy and retrieve it.

I did.

The FAQ clearly says that this site is supposed to be a debate between both sides in order to ascertain the truth.  Meaning that both sides have valuable info to bring the to the table and neither side is strictly correct.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2010, 11:11:36 AM »
Yes, you must prove that x doesn\'t work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a \"community\".

Henry Yule Oldam fails to disprove the Bedford level experiment:

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

Erastothenes fails to disprove the radius of the earth:

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

etc etc etc etc

Both of those people disprove EnaG, but some people will probably be as quick to call those experiments fake or cheats as the RE'ers with Rowbotham.

That or they will cite Blount's experiment.  However, given the fact that there have been no repeat trials recorded with the same results, scientifically those results aren't really valid.

And before I get a Bishop-esque response simply saying "Actually there have been." or some such thing, please post some sort of link to these recorded subsequent trials.  Otherwise, your claim is as valid as me saying I'm actually a giant pear.

Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2010, 07:48:29 AM »
You make a poor analogy. The info is up, you just have to quit being lazy and retrieve it.
You make a poor argument. The info is up, you just have to quit being lazy and link it.
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2010, 04:23:18 PM »
Where else in the world can you go to see Emilio Estevez arguing with a mollusk...?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2010, 05:44:31 AM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.


Using the search function on this site is a logical fallacy.

All your proof is defined as such because you think that the world being flat is fact, therefore any observations must be able to be explained in such a way that fits, nomatter how stupid and illogical they are.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2010, 12:01:55 PM »
We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.


Using the search function on this site is a logical fallacy.

All your proof is defined as such because you think that the world being flat is fact, therefore any observations must be able to be explained in such a way that fits, nomatter how stupid and illogical they are.

And the predictable FE'er response is: Science proves flat earth quite readily.

Without providing any proof of this statement whatsoever.