On the Burden of Proof

  • 41 Replies
  • 5310 Views
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2010, 11:34:37 AM »
Agreed, Disarray.  Though, I felt the need to challenge the accusation that I'm making low-content posts.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2010, 11:44:23 AM »
I think my thread is getting jacked here, the question is:

Quote
These theories are new (as compared to the well-established RET) so why do they not have to be proven as better explanations of natural phenomena than RE's predictions?

Numerous experiments have been conducted, the results of which support FE, and this is a community where FE is the accepted norm, we aren't charging into the Round Earth Society and telling them they're wrong without evidence.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2010, 11:52:59 AM »
Numerous experiments have been conducted, the results of which support FE...
FET-style of reasoning:  A woman looks at me funny.  I get sick a week later.  I consider this evidence in favor of the "witches-casting-curses" theory--as opposed to that loony "virus" theory, which makes no sense at all.

...we aren't charging into the Round Earth Society and telling them they're wrong without evidence.

If you sincerely believed they were mistaken, why wouldn't you?  Point out their mistakes and say "aha, you fool, you've failed to account for points A, B, and C, etc."  If REers are so completely wrong about the shape of the Earth, why do the threads asking for holes in RET go unanswered?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2010, 12:04:07 PM »
I guess what I am looking for here is this:

Have any experiments been performed which do not merely provide an alternate explanation for RE phenomena, but a better one? By that I mean does FE either:
a) predict any observable phenomena to a greater degree of precision than RET does, or
b) predict any observable phenomena which RE has no explanation for?

Also, have any of these theories been published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals? I would be very eager to read any such articles.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2010, 12:08:25 PM »
Numerous experiments have been conducted, the results of which support FE...
FET-style of reasoning:  A woman looks at me funny.  I get sick a week later.  I consider this evidence in favor of the "witches-casting-curses" theory--as opposed to that loony "virus" theory, which makes no sense at all.

...we aren't charging into the Round Earth Society and telling them they're wrong without evidence.

If you sincerely believed they were mistaken, why wouldn't you?  Point out their mistakes and say "aha, you fool, you've failed to account for points A, B, and C, etc."  If REers are so completely wrong about the shape of the Earth, why do the threads asking for holes in RET go unanswered?

1. No. You have no basis for that, you're just cramming us into your "moron" mould.
2. We're not so smug we feel we have to preach the truth to everybody else. Clearly you are, Missionary Ellipsis. We barbaric, ignorant, witchfearing FES natives cower before your knowledge of RET's magnetic fields and the magic you call electricity.
I guess what I am looking for here is this:

Have any experiments been performed which do not merely provide an alternate explanation for RE phenomena, but a better one? By that I mean does FE either:
a) predict any observable phenomena to a greater degree of precision than RET does, or
b) predict any observable phenomena which RE has no explanation for?

Also, have any of these theories been published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals? I would be very eager to read any such articles.

Yes. We have a wiki and such, but FET is so vilified in popular science that few are published.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2010, 12:12:00 PM »

Yes. We have a wiki and such, but FET is so vilified in popular science that few are published.


Specifically which sections of the wiki satisfy the requirements I laid out in my last post?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2010, 12:17:25 PM »

Yes. We have a wiki and such, but FET is so vilified in popular science that few are published.


Specifically which sections of the wiki satisfy the requirements I laid out in my last post?

You can find it yourself, you're a big boy!
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2010, 12:21:32 PM »
I have read the wiki, I could not find any experiments there which predicted anything more accurately than RET, or predicted anything observable which RE does not. I am asking you to help me by pointing out specific sections which demonstrate these which I may have missed.

EDIT: The only thing I could find on the wiki which it claimed RE could not explain was the red lunar eclipses. We will suspend for a moment the fact that the wiki's explanation of lunar eclipses differs significantly from many posts I have seen on here.

The wiki states that because the atmosphere is only about 100 miles thick, you would only see 100 miles of redness on the moon's surface (again this is still significantly larger than many estimates of moon size I have seen on the forums) but the redness can cover the entire moon's surface.

This is in fact very well explained by RET. The atmosphere is capable of scattering light that passes through it. It is for the same reason that the sun sometimes appears larger and redder at sunrise and sunset, especially when that light is passing through heavily polluted air.

Is that the only thing available on the wiki which meets my criteria, or are there others I am missing? I would be glad to provide any missing RE explanations if I knew where to look.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 01:00:13 PM by General Disarray »
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2010, 11:10:50 PM »
I just obtained some further proof that the earth is round, see for yourself!



And by the way, still looking for aspects of FE which:
a) predict any observable phenomena to a greater degree of precision than RET does, or
b) predict any observable phenomena which RE has no explanation for

The wiki is very unhelpful in these areas. Can anyone point me to a specific section which makes a claim like this?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2010, 02:51:56 PM »
The wiki is very unhelpful in these areas.

They know this.

Can anyone point me to a specific section which makes a claim like this?

Nope.  sorry, dude.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2010, 03:36:43 PM »
I figured. I'd just like to get a better explanation for why the burden for proving these new ideas is on RET supporters than "our forum we don't have to do jack".
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2010, 03:43:01 PM »
"If they support my views, why bother undermining them?"

Really, this is a common thing among humans.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds