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

It's pretty safe to say that to be an expert in something, you have to be recognized as such by the community at large. Thus, there is the matter credentials. Again, that is why scientists have to first go through years of schooling, do a thesis, and be judged by their peers when they present this thesis. They can't declare themselves an expert, they have to show to other people that already have a solid reputation that they are indeed experts in some specialization.

I didn't expect you to take me that literally in my earlier post. There is no grant money stealing going on. What I meant to say is that science is generally pretty competitive. Scientists get grant money generally on the basis of the quality of their work and how often they are able to publish. If a scientist was to say, set up a bogus experiment, and another group of scientists prove that they can't reproduce the original results or some other equivalent scenario, then odds are likely your funding will not be as good the following year -- you've lost some credibility, or perhaps just shown that maybe the University or whatever organization should be funding someone else's project just because they're better at studying that subject than you are.

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.

No, I'm stating that the costs of the military mean there is little money to spare. Hell - my brother (Former Corporal within the USMC, two tours in Iraq - Handyman for all telecommunications, nav. systems, radios, etc.) can personally vouch that the military is actually slightly underfunded in terms of pay and reasonable amounts of equipment (the wars in the Middle East have developed a shortage in terms of machines due to frequent wear and tear in the desert). For you to even say that the military has the funds necessary to protect  a SECTION of the "Ice Wall," when it is investing all of its efforts and money into fighting terrorism and protecting our borders (the last one being a bit lacking) is utterly laughable.

Tell me Pongo just how many men, bases, installations, ships, aircraft, and supplies do you think are required to do the job required needed so that not a SINGLE bit of evidence has been recovered?

Quote from: Pongo on May 03, 2010, 09:40:17 PM

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.

No, I'm stating that the costs of the military mean there is little money to spare. Hell - my brother (Former Corporal within the USMC, two tours in Iraq - Handyman for all telecommunications, nav. systems, radios, etc.) can personally vouch that the military is actually slightly underfunded in terms of pay and reasonable amounts of equipment (the wars in the Middle East have developed a shortage in terms of machines due to frequent wear and tear in the desert). For you to even say that the military has the funds necessary to protect the a SECTION "Ice Wall," when it is investing all of its efforts and money into fighting terrorism and protecting our borders (the last one being a bit lacking) is utterly laughable.

Tell me Pongo just how many men, bases, installations, ships, aircraft, and supplies do you think are required to do the job required needed so that not a SINGLE bit of evidence has been recovered?

Having worked on military bases all over the US and even on Guam, I can verify what he's saying.  In general, soldiers are underpaid.  Many even qualify for food stamps!

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.

Hrmmmm, this is also, by definition, incorrect. 

Quote from: Lorddave on May 04, 2010, 05:27:39 AM

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.

Hrmmmm, this is also, by definition, incorrect. 

In your own words pongo, tell us precisely what a scientist is, what they do, and exactly how someone becomes a scientist in the first place. Details would be great, because as a scientist, well, I'm rather curious as to why I am apparently unable to explain a very basic concept in which I have a great deal of experience.

In your own words pongo, tell us precisely what a scientist is, what they do, and exactly how someone becomes a scientist in the first place. Details would be great, because as a scientist, well, I'm rather curious as to why I am apparently unable to explain a very basic concept in which I have a great deal of experience.

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

"an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences."

The path that you take to get there, the things you do while there, and means in which you do them are all irrelevant.  The vast majority of scientists are learned men and women who have dedicated years in various educational institutions all across this plain. However, according to the definition, all the requirements that have been listing are incorrect.  All one has to do to be a scientist, by definition (do you find it funny that I keep including this clause over and over again?) is to be an expert in science.  SO, when these criteria to being a scientist are continuously listed, they are definitively wrong.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 02:50:09 AM

In your own words pongo, tell us precisely what a scientist is, what they do, and exactly how someone becomes a scientist in the first place. Details would be great, because as a scientist, well, I'm rather curious as to why I am apparently unable to explain a very basic concept in which I have a great deal of experience.

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

"an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences."

The path that you take to get there, the things you do while there, and means in which you do them are all irrelevant.  The vast majority of scientists are learned men and women who have dedicated years in various educational institutions all across this plain. However, according to the definition, all the requirements that have been listing are incorrect.  All one has to do to be a scientist, by definition (do you find it funny that I keep including this clause over and over again?) is to be an expert in science.  SO, when these criteria to being a scientist are continuously listed, they are definitively wrong.

Seems there's no point in arguing with you, since you clearly know my occupation better than I do, or at least how to get to where I'm at better than I do, based on a handful of words in a dictionary.
Exactly how you are capable of thinking that a short phrase does an adequate job of describing the complexities of every single occupation, and how you become an expert in it, is in some way realistic, makes absolutely no sense to me...

The path that you take to get there, the things you do while there, and means in which you do them are all irrelevant.

Are you stating that the processes to become a scientist and the processes that are key to being a scientist are irrelevant?

I wonder how one becomes an expert in science if the process to become an expert in science is irrelevant.


You cannot just be a scientist, there are processes that you must partake to be a scientist - You seem to think they are irrelevant.

Quote from: Pongo on May 05, 2010, 03:01:41 AM

The path that you take to get there, the things you do while there, and means in which you do them are all irrelevant.

Are you stating that the processes to become a scientist and the processes that are key to being a scientist are irrelevant?

I wonder how one becomes an expert in science if the process to become an expert in science is irrelevant.


You cannot just be a scientist, there are processes that you must partake to be a scientist - You seem to think they are irrelevant.

You need only go pick up a chemistry set at the nearest Toys R Us to become a scientist. Schooling and theses be damned!

Exactly how you are capable of thinking that a short phrase does an adequate job of describing the complexities of every single occupation, and how you become an expert in it, is in some way realistic, makes absolutely no sense to me...

For your exuberant and frequent claims of being a scientist, and all the attributing education required, you seem to lack a rudimentary understanding in reading comprehension.  Let me try and break this down one more time:

1) You listed requirements to being a scientist
2) These requirements were incorrect as defined by the dictionary

Never once during any of this did I say you were wrong in any capacity except as defined by the dictionary.  Never did I say anyone with a minimal knowledge in their desired field was a scientist (and I believe I said that very clearly).  Never did I say the process of learning in your field was irrelevant.  I said, that your ludicrous requirements to being a scientist were definitively wrong.  Through, I would be willing to easily concede that they are not mutually exclusive -- something that I believe you assumed I did.

In order to be a scientist, you need not go to school, you need not publish papers, and surely need not even follow the scientific method (though not doing any one of these would almost certainly make you a poor scientist).  All you need to do is have acquired an expertise in your field of science. 

I have the dictionary backing up my definition, you have the nothing more than a veiled appeal to authority behind your side.  Keep the strawmen coming, I'll keep correcting you.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 03:22:56 AM

Exactly how you are capable of thinking that a short phrase does an adequate job of describing the complexities of every single occupation, and how you become an expert in it, is in some way realistic, makes absolutely no sense to me...

For your exuberant and frequent claims of being a scientist, and all the attributing education required, you seem to lack a rudimentary understanding in reading comprehension.  Let me try and break this down one more time:

1) You listed requirements to being a scientist
2) These requirements were incorrect as defined by the dictionary

Never once during any of this did I say you were wrong in any capacity except as defined by the dictionary.  Never did I say anyone with a minimal knowledge in their desired field was a scientist (and I believe I said that very clearly).  Never did I say the process of learning in your field was irrelevant.  I said, that your ludicrous requirements to being a scientist were definitively wrong.  Through, I would be willing to easily concede that they are not mutually exclusive -- something that I believe you assumed I did.

In order to be a scientist, you need not go to school, you need not publish papers, and surely need not even follow the scientific method (though not doing any one of these would almost certainly make you a poor scientist).  All you need to do is have acquired an expertise in your field of science. 

I have the dictionary backing up my definition, you have the nothing more than a veiled appeal to authority behind your side.  Keep the strawmen coming, I'll keep correcting you.

I claim I am a scientist only because I was acknowledged as such by completing a very well defined set of criteria. A definition from a book is not what determines whether or not someone is a scientist, the final call is made by your peers; in terms of employment, credibility, etc., this call is the only one that has any actual meaning in the real world.

Being knowledgeable =/= expertise.

***

All you have done is explain that no criteria exist to demonstrate that someone is a scientist. You claim that the only requirement to become a scientist, that is, an expert, is to acquire expertise in some field. Thats a circular argument. No one is arguing that experts require expertise.

Without schooling, advanced training (such as mentoring under someone already established as a scientist) , or using the scientific method, how does someone become a practitioner of science?

All you have done is explain how not to become an scientist. You claim that the only requirement to become a scientist, that is, an expert, is to acquire expertise in some field. Thats a circular argument. No one is arguing that scientists require expertise.

I explained how you become an expert in a field of science, as defined by dictionary.com

?adjective
3. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled

Without schooling, advanced training (such as mentoring under someone already established as a scientist) , or using the scientific method, how does someone become a practitioner of science?

And yet, quoting me the definition of the word expert once again, does nothing to make your statement (the one about the requirements to being a scientist) true.  Also, I never once said someone couldn't take an apprenticeship and become an expert.  All I said was that in order to become a scientist, one did not have to go to school, go to more school, and publish papers.  Though, I see that since you are now accepting the fact that one could become very knowledgeable (say to the point of expert and thus qualifying them as a scientist) by other means than schooling via learning under a mentor, you are admitting the fact that your previous statement was fallacious (as you said a scientist had to do those things to qualify).

I shall count this as a win.  Now, we have seriously derailed this thread and should get back to flat earth topics.  Perhaps you can ask my perspective on a some flat earth questions as the topic title stated.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 06:08:32 AM

All you have done is explain how not to become an scientist. You claim that the only requirement to become a scientist, that is, an expert, is to acquire expertise in some field. Thats a circular argument. No one is arguing that scientists require expertise.

I explained how you become an expert in a field of science, as defined by dictionary.com

?adjective
3. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled

Without schooling, advanced training (such as mentoring under someone already established as a scientist) , or using the scientific method, how does someone become a practitioner of science?

And yet, quoting me the definition of the word expert once again, does nothing to make your statement (the one about the requirements to being a scientist) true.  Also, I never once said someone couldn't take an apprenticeship and become an expert.  All I said was that in order to become a scientist, one did not have to go to school, go to more school, and publish papers.  Though, I see that since you are now accepting the fact that one could become very knowledgeable (say to the point of expert and thus qualifying them as a scientist) by other means than schooling via learning under a mentor, you are admitting the fact that your previous statement was fallacious (as you said a scientist had to do those things to qualify).

I shall count this as a win.  Now, we have seriously derailed this thread and should get back to flat earth topics.  Perhaps you can ask my perspective on a some flat earth questions as the topic title stated.

You have not yet, at any point mentioned how you become a scientist. If the paths are that many, then list them. Draw us a line between a scientist and a science enthusiast.

We established a long time ago that scientist is an expert in their field, from the definition of scientist.

Becoming an expert, thus a scientist, by means of gaining expertise is an utterly worthless way of explaining how someone becomes a scientist. This is all you've managed to say on the subject. You haven't won anything, except maybe my disrespect, but that's hardly here nor there.

Tell me Pongo just how many men, bases, installations, ships, aircraft, and supplies do you think are required to do the job required needed so that not a SINGLE bit of evidence has been recovered?

/Looks at gold watch. Begins to whistle a version of 45 by Shinedown./

You have not yet, at any point mentioned how you become a scientist. If the paths are that many, then list them. Draw us a line between a scientist and a science enthusiast.

No, I haven't and nor should I need to for you to be incorrect as defined by the dictionary.  Allow me instead to poke another hole into your argument.  If in order to be a scientist, one needs to produce papers to their peers; how did the first scientist come about?  And, as a follow up, who was the first scientist?  If they published papers then it should be well documented.

Quote from: Death-T on May 04, 2010, 03:18:37 PM

Tell me Pongo just how many men, bases, installations, ships, aircraft, and supplies do you think are required to do the job required needed so that not a SINGLE bit of evidence has been recovered?

/Looks at gold watch. Begins to whistle a version of 45 by Shinedown./

I don't understand the question, could you please rephrase and elaborate?  Also, nice watch.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 12:04:17 PM

You have not yet, at any point mentioned how you become a scientist. If the paths are that many, then list them. Draw us a line between a scientist and a science enthusiast.

No, I haven't and nor should I need to for you to be incorrect as defined by the dictionary.  Allow me instead to poke another hole into your argument.  If in order to be a scientist, one needs to produce papers to their peers; how did the first scientist come about?  And, as a follow up, who was the first scientist?  If they published papers then it should be well documented.

The first sentence is a cop out. A dictionary is a useful tool to reference. It is not an all inclusive guide to everything. Your assertion that it is such an all encompassing guide is well beyond moronic. Like wikipedia, it has very limited usage as you start getting to the nuances of whatever it is you're examining.

Science has changed over the years, technically, as I mentioned (as did several other FE'rs and RE'rs on a separate thread) it started out as a philosophy guided by logic. The word scientist is a modern invention. For most of recorded history, inquiry of this sort was done by Natural Philosophers. Some was passed orally to anyone that showed interest, and some was passed down through ancient texts or notes. As our knowledge of the world has increased, so has our ability to design tools to peer deeper into its workings, thus correct and improve upon the work of people before us who didn't have our technology. In the current day and age, the rigor that is expected from scientists is greater than it has ever been before, thus we have extensive training and required learning. Sometimes pioneers tap into a new field (nanotech, for example is a fairly new field still in its infancy) and they quickly learn things in which no previous understanding existed. After a short while they get the basics figured out and the problems become harder, more on par with the already developed/explored branches of science.

Anyway, here's an article for you. A quick search using 'first scientist' on google has several useful links on the first page.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Who-Was-the-First-Scientist?&id=637076

A dictionary is a useful tool to reference. It is not an all inclusive guide to everything. Your assertion that it is such an all encompassing guide is well beyond moronic.

I think there should be some sort of Godwin-esque internet law about this.  As an argument continues, dependence on and tendency to pick apart dictionary definitions increases.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 11:03:40 PM

A dictionary is a useful tool to reference. It is not an all inclusive guide to everything. Your assertion that it is such an all encompassing guide is well beyond moronic.

I think there should be some sort of Godwin-esque internet law about this.  As an argument continues, dependence on and tendency to pick apart dictionary definitions increases.

.. only on FES...

A dictionary is a useful tool to reference. It is not an all inclusive guide to everything. Your assertion that it is such an all encompassing guide is well beyond moronic. Like wikipedia, it has very limited usage as you start getting to the nuances of whatever it is you're examining.

The only point I've ever argued is that, according to this reference tool, you are wrong.  Never did I say you were incorrect in any other capacity, and I've never stated that the dictionary is an all encompassing guide.  I grow weary of continuously pointing out your strawmen.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 11:03:40 PM

A dictionary is a useful tool to reference. It is not an all inclusive guide to everything. Your assertion that it is such an all encompassing guide is well beyond moronic. Like wikipedia, it has very limited usage as you start getting to the nuances of whatever it is you're examining.

The only point I've ever argued is that, according to this reference tool, you are wrong.  Never did I say you were incorrect in any other capacity, and I've never stated that the dictionary is an all encompassing guide.  I grow weary of continuously pointing out your strawmen.

Strawman falls flat on you, Pongo. For all it's worth, I'm thoroughly annoyed with your inability to appropriately apply definitions.
Because, you see, I never argued that the definition of scientist was wrong. Neither did I argue that the definition of expert, used to describe a scientist, was wrong either. I simply argued that it was grossly incomplete when applied specifically to scientists. In case you forgot, I explained several times how someone becomes an expert in the physical sciences, thus a scientist.They weren't explicitly in the definition, but regardless, they did not contradict what it said.

So except that by saying my elaboration of the definition of the scientist was incorrect "by definition", you showed that you do in fact hold the dictionary as the end-all be-all. Had I said that scientists must have no knowledge about the natural sciences, then yes, I would have been in violation of your precious definitions. But I didn't make any contradictory claims to any of the relevant phrases.

Okay, let me try this from a different angle.  I'm going to make a statement and you're going to tell me why it's wrong:

To be a scientist, you have to wear a lab coat.

You're one fails because you don't have to wear one at all depending on what science it is.


But every scientist must be an expert in science, which means that they have been taught, which is what he stated.

Quote from: Death-T on May 05, 2010, 07:42:21 PM

Quote from: Death-T on May 04, 2010, 03:18:37 PM

Tell me Pongo just how many men, bases, installations, ships, aircraft, and supplies do you think are required to do the job required needed so that not a SINGLE bit of evidence has been recovered?

/Looks at gold watch. Begins to whistle a version of 45 by Shinedown./

I don't understand the question, could you please rephrase and elaborate?  Also, nice watch.

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"
( Warning - its a set-up!)

Okay, let me try this from a different angle.  I'm going to make a statement and you're going to tell me why it's wrong:

To be a scientist, you have to wear a lab coat.

The kid who works across the street at the Walgreen's photo department wears a lab coat. 

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"

Honestly, I'm not sure.  Something more than a lot.  To be totally truthful though, I suspect that the 'ice wall' isn't even habitable by human beings.  I would suspect there is a toxic atmosphere or perhaps even none at all.  It's hard to tell the ramifications on the body being in such proximity to the edge of the world.  It can't be healthy.  If this were true, then it would take a very few people to guard the wall.

Quote from: Pongo on May 06, 2010, 03:42:08 AM

Okay, let me try this from a different angle.  I'm going to make a statement and you're going to tell me why it's wrong:

To be a scientist, you have to wear a lab coat.

The kid who works across the street at the Walgreen's photo department wears a lab coat. 

Just as wearing a lab coat is not required to be a scientist (by definition), neither is having to publish papers.

I'd say to be a scientist, one must use the scientific method.  Since the FEers I've seen (those who profess any method at all) outright reject the scientific method in full and substitute a sad artifice in its place, I wouldn't call them scientists.

Quote from: Death-T on May 06, 2010, 01:56:41 PM

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"

Honestly, I'm not sure.  Something more than a lot.  To be totally truthful though, I suspect that the 'ice wall' isn't even habitable by human beings.  I would suspect there is a toxic atmosphere or perhaps even none at all.  It's hard to tell the ramifications on the body being in such proximity to the edge of the world.  It can't be healthy.  If this were true, then it would take a very few people to guard the wall.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 03:07:32 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 06, 2010, 03:42:08 AM

Okay, let me try this from a different angle.  I'm going to make a statement and you're going to tell me why it's wrong:

To be a scientist, you have to wear a lab coat.

The kid who works across the street at the Walgreen's photo department wears a lab coat. 

Just as wearing a lab coat is not required to be a scientist (by definition), neither is having to publish papers.

Pongo... pay careful attention here.

A lab coat does not imply expertise -- as anyone can don a lab coat.

Publishing papers does imply expertiese, because you have to know what the hell your are talking about for it to withstand even the slightest degree of criticism. Please quit posting stupid arguments.

Quote from: Death-T on May 06, 2010, 01:56:41 PM

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"

Honestly, I'm not sure.  Something more than a lot.  To be totally truthful though, I suspect that the 'ice wall' isn't even habitable by human beings.  I would suspect there is a toxic atmosphere or perhaps even none at all.  It's hard to tell the ramifications on the body being in such proximity to the edge of the world.  It can't be healthy.  If this were true, then it would take a very few people to guard the wall.

In other words, you have no idea whatsoever.  Thanks for clearing that up.

A lab coat does not imply expertise -- as anyone can don a lab coat.

Publishing papers does imply expertiese, because you have to know what the hell your are talking about for it to withstand even the slightest degree of criticism. Please quit posting stupid arguments.

Yet still, just as it is not required that you wear a lab coat to be a scientist (by definition), you neither have to fulfill your requirements.

By the way, just a point of personal curiosity, what subject(s) have you published your papers on?  I would be interested in reading them.

Quote from: Pongo on May 06, 2010, 10:46:31 PM

Quote from: Death-T on May 06, 2010, 01:56:41 PM

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"

Honestly, I'm not sure.  Something more than a lot.  To be totally truthful though, I suspect that the 'ice wall' isn't even habitable by human beings.  I would suspect there is a toxic atmosphere or perhaps even none at all.  It's hard to tell the ramifications on the body being in such proximity to the edge of the world.  It can't be healthy.  If this were true, then it would take a very few people to guard the wall.

In other words, you have no idea whatsoever.  Thanks for clearing that up.

I thought I was very clear on that point when I said, "Honestly, I'm not sure."  Thanks for the paraphrasing though... despite it being less succinct now than it originally was.

You're arguing about how you become a scientist, to a scientist, when you're not really sure anyway?