I'd Like A Flat Earth Believers Perspective On A Few Questions

I don't wish to get into a debate about proving/disproving flat earth theory, all I would like to know is the answers to the following questions from a flat earth believers perspective:



Why do all the world governments, NASA etc. spend so much time and money convincing everyone the world is round?

What do they have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?

Why has the flat earth theory never been brought into the public domain if their is so much evidence?



I'm in no way trying to prove round earth theory or disprove flat earth or vice versa.  I'm just curious as to if the earth is flat why would people try to hide it.

The best answer I've heard is that they (leading scientists) don't want to admit such a huge mistake, thinking that people would presume science fell flat on its face.  It's baseless conjecture, sure,  but lots of stuff here is.  Another idea is that there's apparently money to get out of it and that it's all a scam, but nobody can work out how any sort of cover-up this big would actually make more than it spends.

I heard that, beyond the Ice Wall, is something so great that it's a huge money maker. 
Like infinite energy or gold or something.


All of which is traceable mind you.

I heard that, beyond the Ice Wall, is something so great that it's a huge money maker. 
Like infinite energy or gold or something.


All of which is traceable mind you.

From a simple port master's desk non-the-less.

I don't wish to get into a debate about proving/disproving flat earth theory, all I would like to know is the answers to the following questions from a flat earth believers perspective:



Why do all the world governments, NASA etc. spend so much time and money convincing everyone the world is round?

What do they have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?

Why has the flat earth theory never been brought into the public domain if their is so much evidence?



I'm in no way trying to prove round earth theory or disprove flat earth or vice versa.?  I'm just curious as to if the earth is flat why would people try to hide it.

The truth is, NASA gets less than 1% (about half of 1% is memory serves) of the US budget, while the military gets about 50%.  If nothing else is a more obvious of a proof for a flat earth, nothing is.  If space travel was real, you would think that a government would be pouring cash into it.  The potential gains are staggering.  Instead, money is dumped into the military in order to keep financing guards on the ice wall.  A very few people in the government know this, the ice wall guards think they are enforcing a line in some obscure country, elected officials continue to give money to the military thinking that they are keeping the world safe from terrorists or whatnot. 

You ask what people would have to gain from perpetuating the conspiracy?  A better question would be what could people lose?  The answer to that is not pretty; the destabilization of the global economy as we know it.  In the beginning of the enlightened era, scientists, in an effort to produce results (mind you that these people were not farmers or social elites.  They were the beginnings of a new class of person -- the middle class.  Thus they had to maintain a steady pace of invention or rethinking lest they be cast into the fields as their ancestors were) created the idea of a round earth.  They did this party to maintain standing, but also to loosen the grip of the church so that their class status -- previously kept smothered by the oppressive boot of religion -- may flourish. 

As the decades turned to centuries, popular science maintained the idea of a spherical earth, and even created clever little experiments to 'prove' the shape.  It wasn't long until almost everyone in the scientific community had deceived themselves.  Later, in the 1950's, many American scientists rediscovered the truth, but the American government silenced them.  If the earth was known to be flat, then the current latitudes and longitudes used to remap post-WWII Europe, and the then current 56th parallel splitting Korea in half, would be erroneous.  Not to mention the northern border of America.  Also during this time, in an attempt to boost homeland morale, Russia told the world that they launched a satellite, a few years later they released a story about an animal they shot into space, then after that, a human being.  The USA, not ones to be left out, created their own space program and began 'shooting' people into space.  It turned out to be a huge factor in getting the population on the government's side.  It also made a nice little place for a government to hide money that they used to train and implement spies during those treacherous times.  This was the norm until the world-wide recession in the 1980's.  At this time, with technology in its infancy, the government and many large corporations began seeding the lies that would become the great satellite networks in the skies and space stations in the stars.  This zealous overproduction of electronics pulled the world out of the recession and improved the quality of life the 'globe' over.  Now, with the lies and deceit so integrated into over lives, and the very economy that we depend on, there is no way we can turn back.  You now see that if we do, it will unweave the very fabrics of society and crash our economy in one fell swoop.

As for your final question, I believe that the answer looms ominously in the last two paragraphs.  I hope that this has cleared things up for you.

Quote from: ThatGuyInRoom20 on April 30, 2010, 06:12:28 PM

I don't wish to get into a debate about proving/disproving flat earth theory, all I would like to know is the answers to the following questions from a flat earth believers perspective:



Why do all the world governments, NASA etc. spend so much time and money convincing everyone the world is round?

What do they have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?

Why has the flat earth theory never been brought into the public domain if their is so much evidence?



I'm in no way trying to prove round earth theory or disprove flat earth or vice versa.?  I'm just curious as to if the earth is flat why would people try to hide it.

The truth is, NASA gets less than 1% (about half of 1% is memory serves) of the US budget, while the military gets about 50%.  If nothing else is a more obvious of a proof for a flat earth, nothing is.  If space travel was real, you would think that a government would be pouring cash into it.  The potential gains are staggering.  Instead, money is dumped into the military in order to keep financing guards on the ice wall.  A very few people in the government know this, the ice wall guards think they are enforcing a line in some obscure country, elected officials continue to give money to the military thinking that they are keeping the world safe from terrorists or whatnot. 

You ask what people would have to gain from perpetuating the conspiracy?  A better question would be what could people lose?  The answer to that is not pretty; the destabilization of the global economy as we know it.  In the beginning of the enlightened era, scientists, in an effort to produce results (mind you that these people were not farmers or social elites.  They were the beginnings of a new class of person -- the middle class.  Thus they had to maintain a steady pace of invention or rethinking lest they be cast into the fields as their ancestors were) created the idea of a round earth.  They did this party to maintain standing, but also to loosen the grip of the church so that their class status -- previously kept smothered by the oppressive boot of religion -- may flourish. 

As the decades turned to centuries, popular science maintained the idea of a spherical earth, and even created clever little experiments to 'prove' the shape.  It wasn't long until almost everyone in the scientific community had deceived themselves.  Later, in the 1950's, many American scientists rediscovered the truth, but the American government silenced them.  If the earth was known to be flat, then the current latitudes and longitudes used to remap post-WWII Europe, and the then current 56th parallel splitting Korea in half, would be erroneous.  Not to mention the northern border of America.  Also during this time, in an attempt to boost homeland morale, Russia told the world that they launched a satellite, a few years later they released a story about an animal they shot into space, then after that, a human being.  The USA, not ones to be left out, created their own space program and began 'shooting' people into space.  It turned out to be a huge factor in getting the population on the government's side.  It also made a nice little place for a government to hide money that they used to train and implement spies during those treacherous times.  This was the norm until the world-wide recession in the 1980's.  At this time, with technology in its infancy, the government and many large corporations began seeding the lies that would become the great satellite networks in the skies and space stations in the stars.  This zealous overproduction of electronics pulled the world out of the recession and improved the quality of life the 'globe' over.  Now, with the lies and deceit so integrated into over lives, and the very economy that we depend on, there is no way we can turn back.  You now see that if we do, it will unweave the very fabrics of society and crash our economy in one fell swoop.

As for your final question, I believe that the answer looms ominously in the last two paragraphs.  I hope that this has cleared things up for you.

You need to stop pulling shit out of your ass. Waging war is expensive as hell, and you'll see even a single Apache helicopter cost around 15 million to make. It's even traceable where all this money for the military goes and it's readily available from sites like wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States (For more in depth, look at their sources). War cost money, and you'll find that since around 2001 the US started spending way more money on the military, because (drum roll) ... the Iraq war is fucking real.

Economics is hard to understand for everyone, I don't blame you. But suggesting it goes towards the Ice Wall conspiracy is just plain ignorant. There is absolutely no proof here of a conspiracy, and even when space flight is possible, the normal american citizen is more interested in defending his ass, than seeing if he can see green aliens in space.

Quote from: ThatGuyInRoom20 on April 30, 2010, 06:12:28 PM

I don't wish to get into a debate about proving/disproving flat earth theory, all I would like to know is the answers to the following questions from a flat earth believers perspective:



Why do all the world governments, NASA etc. spend so much time and money convincing everyone the world is round?

What do they have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?

Why has the flat earth theory never been brought into the public domain if their is so much evidence?



I'm in no way trying to prove round earth theory or disprove flat earth or vice versa.?  I'm just curious as to if the earth is flat why would people try to hide it.

The truth is, NASA gets less than 1% (about half of 1% is memory serves) of the US budget, while the military gets about 50%.  If nothing else is a more obvious of a proof for a flat earth, nothing is.  If space travel was real, you would think that a government would be pouring cash into it.  The potential gains are staggering.  Instead, money is dumped into the military in order to keep financing guards on the ice wall.  A very few people in the government know this, the ice wall guards think they are enforcing a line in some obscure country, elected officials continue to give money to the military thinking that they are keeping the world safe from terrorists or whatnot. 

You ask what people would have to gain from perpetuating the conspiracy?  A better question would be what could people lose?  The answer to that is not pretty; the destabilization of the global economy as we know it.  In the beginning of the enlightened era, scientists, in an effort to produce results (mind you that these people were not farmers or social elites.  They were the beginnings of a new class of person -- the middle class.  Thus they had to maintain a steady pace of invention or rethinking lest they be cast into the fields as their ancestors were) created the idea of a round earth.  They did this party to maintain standing, but also to loosen the grip of the church so that their class status -- previously kept smothered by the oppressive boot of religion -- may flourish. 

As the decades turned to centuries, popular science maintained the idea of a spherical earth, and even created clever little experiments to 'prove' the shape.  It wasn't long until almost everyone in the scientific community had deceived themselves.  Later, in the 1950's, many American scientists rediscovered the truth, but the American government silenced them.  If the earth was known to be flat, then the current latitudes and longitudes used to remap post-WWII Europe, and the then current 56th parallel splitting Korea in half, would be erroneous.  Not to mention the northern border of America.  Also during this time, in an attempt to boost homeland morale, Russia told the world that they launched a satellite, a few years later they released a story about an animal they shot into space, then after that, a human being.  The USA, not ones to be left out, created their own space program and began 'shooting' people into space.  It turned out to be a huge factor in getting the population on the government's side.  It also made a nice little place for a government to hide money that they used to train and implement spies during those treacherous times.  This was the norm until the world-wide recession in the 1980's.  At this time, with technology in its infancy, the government and many large corporations began seeding the lies that would become the great satellite networks in the skies and space stations in the stars.  This zealous overproduction of electronics pulled the world out of the recession and improved the quality of life the 'globe' over.  Now, with the lies and deceit so integrated into over lives, and the very economy that we depend on, there is no way we can turn back.  You now see that if we do, it will unweave the very fabrics of society and crash our economy in one fell swoop.

As for your final question, I believe that the answer looms ominously in the last two paragraphs.  I hope that this has cleared things up for you.

How long did it take you to make this little fairy tail up?

Quote from: ThatGuyInRoom20 on April 30, 2010, 06:12:28 PM

I don't wish to get into a debate about proving/disproving flat earth theory, all I would like to know is the answers to the following questions from a flat earth believers perspective:



Why do all the world governments, NASA etc. spend so much time and money convincing everyone the world is round?

What do they have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?

Why has the flat earth theory never been brought into the public domain if their is so much evidence?



I'm in no way trying to prove round earth theory or disprove flat earth or vice versa.?  I'm just curious as to if the earth is flat why would people try to hide it.

The truth is, NASA gets less than 1% (about half of 1% is memory serves) of the US budget, while the military gets about 50%.  If nothing else is a more obvious of a proof for a flat earth, nothing is.  If space travel was real, you would think that a government would be pouring cash into it.  The potential gains are staggering.  Instead, money is dumped into the military in order to keep financing guards on the ice wall.  A very few people in the government know this, the ice wall guards think they are enforcing a line in some obscure country, elected officials continue to give money to the military thinking that they are keeping the world safe from terrorists or whatnot.  

You ask what people would have to gain from perpetuating the conspiracy?  A better question would be what could people lose?  The answer to that is not pretty; the destabilization of the global economy as we know it.  In the beginning of the enlightened era, scientists, in an effort to produce results (mind you that these people were not farmers or social elites.  They were the beginnings of a new class of person -- the middle class.  Thus they had to maintain a steady pace of invention or rethinking lest they be cast into the fields as their ancestors were) created the idea of a round earth.  They did this party to maintain standing, but also to loosen the grip of the church so that their class status -- previously kept smothered by the oppressive boot of religion -- may flourish.  

As the decades turned to centuries, popular science maintained the idea of a spherical earth, and even created clever little experiments to 'prove' the shape.  It wasn't long until almost everyone in the scientific community had deceived themselves.  Later, in the 1950's, many American scientists rediscovered the truth, but the American government silenced them.  If the earth was known to be flat, then the current latitudes and longitudes used to remap post-WWII Europe, and the then current 56th parallel splitting Korea in half, would be erroneous.  Not to mention the northern border of America.  Also during this time, in an attempt to boost homeland morale, Russia told the world that they launched a satellite, a few years later they released a story about an animal they shot into space, then after that, a human being.  The USA, not ones to be left out, created their own space program and began 'shooting' people into space.  It turned out to be a huge factor in getting the population on the government's side.  It also made a nice little place for a government to hide money that they used to train and implement spies during those treacherous times.  This was the norm until the world-wide recession in the 1980's.  At this time, with technology in its infancy, the government and many large corporations began seeding the lies that would become the great satellite networks in the skies and space stations in the stars.  This zealous overproduction of electronics pulled the world out of the recession and improved the quality of life the 'globe' over.  Now, with the lies and deceit so integrated into over lives, and the very economy that we depend on, there is no way we can turn back.  You now see that if we do, it will unweave the very fabrics of society and crash our economy in one fell swoop.

As for your final question, I believe that the answer looms ominously in the last two paragraphs.  I hope that this has cleared things up for you.

Congratulations, Pongo.  You have just topped your "birds push airliners" comment!  This is now the most ludicrous thing you have suggested.

Pongo........ You fail at research. EPICALLY!

- The US defnese buget for 2009 was only 23% of the total amount spent.
- That comes in around 781 billion dollars - a hefty sum indeed.
- To get you to understand the costs of defense -

We have, currently, ten Nimitz CVN 68 - class carriers. Each one costs 6.8 billion right off the bat. The air wing of these ships come out to be worth around 67 billion, each. Now... the combined crews of these ships are around 56,800 personnel, and lets assume that each earn only 20,000 as an average. Comes out to be around 1.136 billion per year.

That means, without factoring in the costs of arms,fuel,food,repairs,ammo,missiles,bombs,etc., we have a grand total of 739.36 billion dollars if we boilt such a fleet in one year. Wow..... thats pretty expensive.

Things I didn't list in addition -
- The costs of every other ship in the USN.
- The costs of the entire tank force in the USA
- The costs of the airplanes in the USAF
- The costs of every single enlisted person ( 1.5 million in active roles) in terms of pay, medical bills, benefits, etc.
- etc.

Congrats Pongo! In a single post, you have failed at logistics, history, economics, and just plain common sense.

Pongo........ You fail at research. EPICALLY!

- The US defnese buget for 2009 was only 23% of the total amount spent.
- That comes in around 781 billion dollars - a hefty sum indeed.
- To get you to understand the costs of defense -

We have, currently, ten Nimitz CVN 68 - class carriers. Each one costs 6.8 billion right off the bat. The air wing of these ships come out to be worth around 67 billion, each. Now... the combined crews of these ships are around 56,800 personnel, and lets assume that each earn only 20,000 as an average. Comes out to be around 1.136 billion per year.

That means, without factoring in the costs of arms,fuel,food,repairs,ammo,missiles,bombs,etc., we have a grand total of 739.36 billion dollars if we boilt such a fleet in one year. Wow..... thats pretty expensive.

Things I didn't list in addition -
- The costs of every other ship in the USN.
- The costs of the entire tank force in the USA
- The costs of the airplanes in the USAF
- The costs of every single enlisted person ( 1.5 million in active roles) in terms of pay, medical bills, benefits, etc.
- etc.

Congrats Pongo! In a single post, you have failed at logistics, history, economics, and just plain common sense.

Some more items for your list...
- The costs of electricity on each of the USA's military bases
- The costs of phone service for these bases
- The costs of business equipment for these bases; computers, desks, chairs, phones, etc.
- The costs of maintaining these bases; road work, landscaping, cleaning, etc.

I'm sure I could think of some more, but I think we've made our point.

The truth is, NASA gets less than 1% (about half of 1% is memory serves) of the US budget, while the military gets about 50%.  If nothing else is a more obvious of a proof for a flat earth, nothing is. 

so the Earth must be flat because we don't spend enough on outer space studies?
that has so many logical fallacies that it is ridiculous. its a misrepresentation of fact,
a false dichotomy, a false reductio absurdum, etc.

You ask what people would have to gain from perpetuating the conspiracy?  A better question would be what could people lose?  The answer to that is not pretty; the destabilization of the global economy as we know it.  In the beginning of the enlightened era, scientists, in an effort to produce results (mind you that these people were not farmers or social elites.  They were the beginnings of a new class of person -- the middle class.  Thus they had to maintain a steady pace of invention or rethinking lest they be cast into the fields as their ancestors were) created the idea of a round earth.  They did this party to maintain standing, but also to loosen the grip of the church so that their class status -- previously kept smothered by the oppressive boot of religion -- may flourish. 

because Erasthones, ptolemy, Kepler were definitly alive during or after the enlightenment
/sarcasm

You need to stop pulling shit out of your ass. Waging war is expensive as hell, and you'll see even a single Apache helicopter cost around 15 million to make. It's even traceable where all this money for the military goes and it's readily available from sites like wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States (For more in depth, look at their sources). War cost money, and you'll find that since around 2001 the US started spending way more money on the military, because (drum roll) ... the Iraq war is fucking real.

Economics is hard to understand for everyone, I don't blame you. But suggesting it goes towards the Ice Wall conspiracy is just plain ignorant. There is absolutely no proof here of a conspiracy, and even when space flight is possible, the normal american citizen is more interested in defending his ass, than seeing if he can see green aliens in space.

When did I say the Iraq War wasn't real?

How long did it take you to make this little fairy tail up?

A lifetime.

Pongo........ You fail at research. EPICALLY!

- The US defnese buget for 2009 was only 23% of the total amount spent.
- That comes in around 781 billion dollars - a hefty sum indeed.
- To get you to understand the costs of defense -

We have, currently, ten Nimitz CVN 68 - class carriers. Each one costs 6.8 billion right off the bat. The air wing of these ships come out to be worth around 67 billion, each. Now... the combined crews of these ships are around 56,800 personnel, and lets assume that each earn only 20,000 as an average. Comes out to be around 1.136 billion per year.

That means, without factoring in the costs of arms,fuel,food,repairs,ammo,missiles,bombs,etc., we have a grand total of 739.36 billion dollars if we boilt such a fleet in one year. Wow..... thats pretty expensive.

Things I didn't list in addition -
- The costs of every other ship in the USN.
- The costs of the entire tank force in the USA
- The costs of the airplanes in the USAF
- The costs of every single enlisted person ( 1.5 million in active roles) in terms of pay, medical bills, benefits, etc.
- etc.

Congrats Pongo! In a single post, you have failed at logistics, history, economics, and just plain common sense.

Sooooooo... By your own research you have shown that there is ample room in which a multi-billion dollar operation could be carried out without anyone so much as giving a second glance?  Why, the creation of a single false Nimitz CVN 68 class ship would net the conspiracy a staggering amount of money.  Though, if they were in the businesses of faking vessels, I would assume they would use something a bit less high-profile.  Who knows though, neither of us are privy to this information.

because Erasthones, ptolemy, Kepler were definitly alive during or after the enlightenment
/sarcasm

The question was "What do they [the world governments, or conspiracy] have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?" not "Can you list some people who mistakenly labeled the shape of the earth as round?"  Please tone down your sarcasm until your reading comprehension improves.

Quote from: ThatGuyInRoom20 on April 30, 2010, 06:12:28 PM

I don't wish to get into a debate about proving/disproving flat earth theory, all I would like to know is the answers to the following questions from a flat earth believers perspective:



Why do all the world governments, NASA etc. spend so much time and money convincing everyone the world is round?

What do they have to gain by convincing everyone the earth is round?

Why has the flat earth theory never been brought into the public domain if their is so much evidence?



I'm in no way trying to prove round earth theory or disprove flat earth or vice versa.?  I'm just curious as to if the earth is flat why would people try to hide it.

The truth is, NASA gets less than 1% (about half of 1% is memory serves) of the US budget, while the military gets about 50%.  If nothing else is a more obvious of a proof for a flat earth, nothing is.  If space travel was real, you would think that a government would be pouring cash into it.  The potential gains are staggering.  Instead, money is dumped into the military in order to keep financing guards on the ice wall.  A very few people in the government know this, the ice wall guards think they are enforcing a line in some obscure country, elected officials continue to give money to the military thinking that they are keeping the world safe from terrorists or whatnot. 

You ask what people would have to gain from perpetuating the conspiracy?  A better question would be what could people lose?  The answer to that is not pretty; the destabilization of the global economy as we know it.  In the beginning of the enlightened era, scientists, in an effort to produce results (mind you that these people were not farmers or social elites.  They were the beginnings of a new class of person -- the middle class.  Thus they had to maintain a steady pace of invention or rethinking lest they be cast into the fields as their ancestors were) created the idea of a round earth.  They did this party to maintain standing, but also to loosen the grip of the church so that their class status -- previously kept smothered by the oppressive boot of religion -- may flourish. 

As the decades turned to centuries, popular science maintained the idea of a spherical earth, and even created clever little experiments to 'prove' the shape.  It wasn't long until almost everyone in the scientific community had deceived themselves.  Later, in the 1950's, many American scientists rediscovered the truth, but the American government silenced them.  If the earth was known to be flat, then the current latitudes and longitudes used to remap post-WWII Europe, and the then current 56th parallel splitting Korea in half, would be erroneous.  Not to mention the northern border of America.  Also during this time, in an attempt to boost homeland morale, Russia told the world that they launched a satellite, a few years later they released a story about an animal they shot into space, then after that, a human being.  The USA, not ones to be left out, created their own space program and began 'shooting' people into space.  It turned out to be a huge factor in getting the population on the government's side.  It also made a nice little place for a government to hide money that they used to train and implement spies during those treacherous times.  This was the norm until the world-wide recession in the 1980's.  At this time, with technology in its infancy, the government and many large corporations began seeding the lies that would become the great satellite networks in the skies and space stations in the stars.  This zealous overproduction of electronics pulled the world out of the recession and improved the quality of life the 'globe' over.  Now, with the lies and deceit so integrated into over lives, and the very economy that we depend on, there is no way we can turn back.  You now see that if we do, it will unweave the very fabrics of society and crash our economy in one fell swoop.

As for your final question, I believe that the answer looms ominously in the last two paragraphs.  I hope that this has cleared things up for you.

I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

Point is, the supposed rewards to this conspiracy are nonexistent. When I started my undergrad in geology, I was never told "Hey you! You're going to love being a scientist. Everything about our field is a hoax, but it pays well. So just stick it out for 10 or more years and you'll be rolling in sweet cash!".

No, I was told by my professors that odds are likely you will barely scrape by until you get accepted into a phd program, at which point the University will probably feed you and give you a place to live. You will still be poor, you will be even more overworked, and you will absolutely hate your existence, unless you actually enjoy learning and working tirelessly for what might possibly be a reference in someone else's paper. If you get lucky, you might be able to get tenured and write a textbook.

***

The rewards to space travel really aren't that great. Unobtainium doesn't exist... hauling hydrocarbons from Titan to earth is not remotely profitable. Mars is not habitable in the long term, whatever sci-fi writers would love to think. The only genuinely practical application of space research that I can think of is communications and orbital weapon deployment. So all that money that gets sunk into NASA and every other world space program agency, well, it's certainly not going to the right researchers or programs! If it was a conspiracy, the motive sure is missing!

I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

You are, by definition, entirely wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 10:20:33 PM

I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

You are, by definition, entirely wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

And what is this "Expert" word used to define scientist?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expert

Note where it continues to say high degree of skill or knowledge.

As we all know, nobody possesses high skill or knowledge without practice and teaching.

He was entirely correct.

Also: He never said anything about defining "scientist" maybe you should get more knowledge in reading comprehension.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 10:20:33 PM

I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

You are, by definition, entirely wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

I'm not certain I see what you are getting at.

I never gave a definition... I clearly only showed how one becomes a scientist. With training and inquiry.

Quote from: Pongo on May 03, 2010, 10:49:18 PM

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 10:20:33 PM

I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

You are, by definition, entirely wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

I'm not certain I see what you are getting at.

I never gave a definition... I clearly only showed how one becomes a scientist. With training and inquiry.

You listed criteria to becoming a scientist, which by definition is wrong.

Quote from: Pongo on May 03, 2010, 10:49:18 PM

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 10:20:33 PM

I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

You are, by definition, entirely wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

And what is this "Expert" word used to define scientist?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expert

Note where it continues to say high degree of skill or knowledge.

As we all know, nobody possesses high skill or knowledge without practice and teaching.

He was entirely correct.

Also: He never said anything about defining "scientist" maybe you should get more knowledge in reading comprehension.

Does a life-long expert-fisherman go to school, do well?  Then go to more school and do extremely well?  Then finally prove to his or her peers that they have something significant to publish; peers that try to take their fishing grant money?

OR, did Deceiver list requirements to becoming a scientist that were, by definition, incorrect?  Now, I'm going to put this next part in bold so that both you and Deceiver take extra care to pay attention to it.  Deceiver listed requirements to becoming a scientist that are by definition wrong.  Are your minds so lacking in creativity and cast so immovably that you believe that all scientists must attend years of schooling and earn a PhD before they can become a scientist?

You aren't making any sense. According to your definition, scientists are by definition experts in their field. This is first accomplished by having basic credentials. We are at a point now where moderate education is necessary to progress any field of science... I don't consider my nephew a scientist just because he can grow differently shaped crystals for his school science fair. He might have a very basic idea of how different molecules form different crystal lattices, but the understanding stops there. Being a scientist requires incredible understanding within your own field.

And yes, even science has industry standards. It's how we keep ourselves in check and filter out garbage. Also, being a scientist, I think I'm in a position to say what we are and how you become one.

uh yes, you do have to have credentials. We are at a point now where moderate education is necessary to progress any field of science...

Do you not think it presumptuous to state that the dictionary is incorrect?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 11:26:57 PM

uh yes, you do have to have credentials. We are at a point now where moderate education is necessary to progress any field of science...

Do you not think it presumptuous to state that the dictionary is incorrect?

Expert => specialized knowledge => generally gained through education or experience.

Nope, nothing there that disagrees with the definition. Try harder.

You're changing your words.  You quite clearly said "to be a scientist..." then listed requirements.  None of those requirements fit the definition.  Ergo, you are by definition incorrect.  Please scroll back if you are misremembering what you are posting.   

You're changing your words.  You quite clearly said "to be a scientist..." then listed requirements.  None of those requirements fit the definition.  Ergo, you are by definition incorrect.  Please scroll back if you are misremembering what you are posting.   

The definition makes no mention of the Scientific Method. So... I guess that means it's excluded from our definition too.

Under your pretenses anyone that can read a few articles in Scientific American is now a scientist. BRILLIANT! 

I think it's presumptuous to assume that expert means the same thing regardless of use. An expert driver has very little in common than someone who is an expert in say, environmental law.

Quote from: Pongo on May 04, 2010, 12:11:30 AM

You're changing your words.  You quite clearly said "to be a scientist..." then listed requirements.  None of those requirements fit the definition.  Ergo, you are by definition incorrect.  Please scroll back if you are misremembering what you are posting.   

The definition makes no mention of the Scientific Method. So... I guess that means it's excluded from our definition too.

Under your pretenses anyone that can read a few articles in Scientific American is now a scientist. BRILLIANT! 

I think it's presumptuous to assume that expert means the same thing regardless of use. An expert driver has very little in common than someone who is an expert in say, environmental law.

Oh my God, is it that hard for you to admit that you used a word wrong?  Of course scientists are experts in their fields of science and do not compare to drivers.  BUT, to be a scientist, you do not have to do the requirements you listed.  I've never said anyone who reads a magazine is a qualified scientist.  You are either arguing stawmen or have to read things more carefully. 

You are either arguing stawmen or have to read things more carefully.  

Oh the irony!

Anyway, your own web dictionary said "an expert in science".. Lets see what expert means:'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

Read and weep.

Quote from: Pongo on May 04, 2010, 01:57:08 AM

You are either arguing stawmen or have to read things more carefully.  

Oh the irony!

Anyway, your own web dictionary said "an expert in science".. Lets see what expert means:'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

Read and weep.

Please link the part that it says you have to do well in school, do well in more school, and then publish a paper so your peers don't steal your grant money. 

I feel like none of you are understanding me.  Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough.  It was said that to be a scientist you had to meet a certain criteria.  By definition, that is incorrect.  All you have to do is be an expert.  No matter how many times you guys link me the definition of the word expert, it will not change the fact that you do not have to meet the said criteria to be a scientist.

To be a Scientist you need to perform experiments using the scientific method.
To perform experiments using the scientific method you must gather as much valid information about the item or effect you're experimenting on, then develop an experiment to test a specific variable making sure to minimize the effects of all other variables, have your experiment's data recorded, then analyze that data to see if it's statistically significant and either rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis.  Then you take all of your work, put it into a paper, and have a group of people who are experts in the field your experiment is in review and verify that you followed the proper procedures and do not have any flaws or holes in your experiment.

That is how you become a scientist.  

Quote from: Catchpa on May 04, 2010, 02:10:43 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 04, 2010, 01:57:08 AM

You are either arguing stawmen or have to read things more carefully.  

Oh the irony!

Anyway, your own web dictionary said "an expert in science".. Lets see what expert means:'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

Read and weep.

Please link the part that it says you have to do well in school, do well in more school, and then publish a paper so your peers don't steal your grant money. 

I feel like none of you are understanding me.  Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough.  It was said that to be a scientist you had to meet a certain criteria.  By definition, that is incorrect.  All you have to do is be an expert.  No matter how many times you guys link me the definition of the word expert, it will not change the fact that you do not have to meet the said criteria to be a scientist.

Wouldn't becoming an expert on anything mean you have met a certain set of criteria?  For example, you have met the criteria that makes you an expert on post bullshit.  (See your post on birds pushing passenger jets, and the one about the US military budget.) 

Quote from: Catchpa on May 04, 2010, 02:10:43 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 04, 2010, 01:57:08 AM

You are either arguing stawmen or have to read things more carefully.  

Oh the irony!

Anyway, your own web dictionary said "an expert in science".. Lets see what expert means:'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

Read and weep.

Please link the part that it says you have to do well in school, do well in more school, and then publish a paper so your peers don't steal your grant money. 

I feel like none of you are understanding me.  Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough.  It was said that to be a scientist you had to meet a certain criteria.  By definition, that is incorrect.  All you have to do is be an expert.  No matter how many times you guys link me the definition of the word expert, it will not change the fact that you do not have to meet the said criteria to be a scientist.

"Experts have a prolonged or intense experience through practice and education in a particular field.", in other words - Education is most likely required.