The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate

  • 196 Replies
  • 14498 Views
The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« on: May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM »
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc) or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations). As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 10:18:57 AM by amazed »

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2010, 07:46:30 AM »
I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

This is where you went wrong. 
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 07:48:25 AM by Mr Pseudonym »
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2010, 08:40:53 AM »
I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

This is where you went wrong.  

Is it too much to ask people to respond with enough information that they in turn can receive a response. There are many ways to interpret your statement. Would you care to clarify your meaning?

Just to clarify what I meant, I was saying that from what I have seen, at least a few FET'ers use this reasoning to at once dismiss other evidence and also build their case. I also state that it is a perfectly acceptable manner of thinking and living, though limited.

I am also saying that it is the only "noble" or "legitimate" FET stance... any other FET stance is bogus and is a result of double-standards/hypocrisy (though perhaps unintentional).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 08:47:03 AM by amazed »

*

Lorddave

  • 15972
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2010, 12:38:53 PM »
Meh.
Many FEers are just trolls pretending to be believers.
And those who do believe follow basically what you said.


*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2010, 04:47:12 PM »
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.


or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations).

Well, now I'm not sure that this is as negative a thing as you wish to paint it. Would it not be far more dogmatic to oughtright accept or outright reject every scientific dogma, rather than judge each independently on their merits (which is what FEers inevitably find themselves doing)?

As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

Since you have not been on the board long I cannot blame you for not having read extensively on our past research, and I can appreciate how based on current work you might not be sastisfied, but in fact you will come to learn that a great deal of the most rigorous scholarship on the Conspiracy and other such subjects has been conducted already. My learned zetetic brother Tom Bishop and I conducted a study of great detail into the inner obscenities of the Conspiracy only a couple of years ago. It is available here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30418.0


There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

I assure you that I am both rugged and individualistic, as I am certain Messrs. Bishop, Davis, Shenton, &c., are, and I would also deign us noble by your exacting standard. For we do also believe just that which you have laid out, this is the zetetic creed - unwavering dedication to knowing only that which we may know. And yet so much may be perfectly known through this manner of study. A great man once said:

Quote
Beauty, splendor, grandeur, greatness. No adjective can describe the beauty that is perfection.  Such perfection can be attributed to the meditations in which we flat earth philosophers prescribe to.

Thus I believe you would call us noble if you knew the truth.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

Are we justified in the doctrine that the large does not imitate the small?

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).

The hypothetical is the reserve of the globularist fantasist. When beliefs are reduced to the logical outcomes of that which may be truly known, there lieth the wisdom of Thales.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2010, 04:48:49 PM »
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc) or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations). As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).


*Thumbs up*

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2010, 05:08:19 PM »
John Walker, please make sure your posts offer substantive contribution to each debate.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2010, 05:27:05 PM »
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.


or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations).

Well, now I'm not sure that this is as negative a thing as you wish to paint it. Would it not be far more dogmatic to oughtright accept or outright reject every scientific dogma, rather than judge each independently on their merits (which is what FEers inevitably find themselves doing)?

As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

Since you have not been on the board long I cannot blame you for not having read extensively on our past research, and I can appreciate how based on current work you might not be sastisfied, but in fact you will come to learn that a great deal of the most rigorous scholarship on the Conspiracy and other such subjects has been conducted already. My learned zetetic brother Tom Bishop and I conducted a study of great detail into the inner obscenities of the Conspiracy only a couple of years ago. It is available here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30418.0


There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

I assure you that I am both rugged and individualistic, as I am certain Messrs. Bishop, Davis, Shenton, &c., are, and I would also deign us noble by your exacting standard. For we do also believe just that which you have laid out, this is the zetetic creed - unwavering dedication to knowing only that which we may know. And yet so much may be perfectly known through this manner of study. A great man once said:

Quote
Beauty, splendor, grandeur, greatness. No adjective can describe the beauty that is perfection.  Such perfection can be attributed to the meditations in which we flat earth philosophers prescribe to.

Thus I believe you would call us noble if you knew the truth.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

Are we justified in the doctrine that the large does not imitate the small?

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).

The hypothetical is the reserve of the globularist fantasist. When beliefs are reduced to the logical outcomes of that which may be truly known, there lieth the wisdom of Thales.

Pardon my response for being fragmented. I've not yet figured out how to break up a quote into several sections in order to respond to it point by point. I will still respond to it point by point but it will be more difficult to follow.

Thanks for your response. It is actually quite nice to see an FET believer who actually has some depth of character and thought. We disagree in our conclusions, but at least, I can respect your conclusions.

As for illogical arguments by FET believers, I'll give you one brief example.. attempting to prove that evolution supports the existence of a flat Earth. This is illogical because evolutionary theory cannot be used in this way. Evolutionary theory merely gives one links and transitions between the various fossils and findings at hand... so if FET believers develop a theory based on their finding of a flat earth, it holds no meaning for the RET believers who base their evolutionary theory on a round earth. It is silly and illogical of them to think it would have any important in a debate.

Another example is trying to prove that since the word Earth relates to a flat piece of land, therefore, the Earth is flat. That actually transcends illogical and enters the territory of the idiotic.

I agree that it is not necessary to blindly swallow scientific dogma. This is a very harsh guideline to follow in that most scientific data would have to be discarded due to limitations in the individual's expertise and materials to confirm testing.. but nonetheless it is an ideal which is legitimate. However, how can one who holds such harsh ideals for the acceptance of scientific data turn around and then start mythologizing about sky mirrors and ice walls and all other sorts of wholly unsubstantiated phenomena? Why not hold those ideas to the same rigid standards? That is what I call hypocrisy.

I don't want to ramble on since I can't figure out how to respond point by point, but thanks for your response.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2010, 05:46:53 PM »
Thanks for your response. It is actually quite nice to see an FET believer who actually has some depth of character and thought. We disagree in our conclusions, but at least, I can respect your conclusions.

You are welcome my friend. In your attitude you surpass many other globularists who post here seeking answers; I commend you. I am glad we are entering this voyage of discovery with mutual respect and understanding.

As for illogical arguments by FET believers, I'll give you one brief example.. attempting to prove that evolution supports the existence of a flat Earth. This is illogical because evolutionary theory cannot be used in this way. Evolutionary theory merely gives one links and transitions between the various fossils and findings at hand... so if FET believers develop a theory based on their finding of a flat earth, it holds no meaning for the RET believers who base their evolutionary theory on a round earth. It is silly and illogical of them to think it would have any important in a debate.

That is interesting, and not a response which I have yet encountered. However, I wish to ask of you, in what way are the theories of evolution based on, or reliant on, the Round Earth theory? I am not so sure that they are, we should establish this before proceding.

Another example is trying to prove that since the word Earth relates to a flat piece of land, therefore, the Earth is flat. That actually transcends illogical and enters the territory of the idiotic.

I am not sure which of my esteemed colleagues has made this argument. Now, of course, there are two possible senses in which the Earth does relate to a flat piece of land. The first, in that by our claims the Earth is a flat piece of land. Now, if this were the spirit of the argument, I agree it would be illogical. It would be a circular argument of the worst kind, and the argument would fall flat.

Now, there is a second sense of the saying, in which the Earth relates to a piece of flat land. Now I am not sure that this second sense is indeed illogical. I would ask you to reconsider - the Earth relates to a piece of flat land, because for every piece of land, the Earth relates to that land, and since a flat piece of land is a piece of land, the Earth relates to a flat piece of land.

It is an argument of following form:
Let L(x) = x is a piece of [L]and
Let R(x) = the Earth [R]elates to x
Let f = a [F]lat piece of land

∀xL(x) → R(x)
L(f)

R(f)

Now, this is the logical operation known as the modus ponens, and I assure you it is logically valid.

So you see the claim that the Earth relates to a piece of flat land is not illogical when we consider the other premises revealed to us by thorough zetetic inquiry. My zetetic meditations have revealed to me that the Earth relates to every piece of land, and that a flat piece of land is a piece of land. I suspect that your zetetic meditations will offer you similar conclusions.

I agree that it is not necessary to blindly swallow scientific dogma. This is a very harsh guideline to follow in that most scientific data would have to be discarded due to limitations in the individual's expertise and materials to confirm testing.. but nonetheless it is an ideal which is legitimate.

Ah yes, yes, and that is why there is so much work to be done by I and my zetetic brothers. Some of us must discover the zetetic meditations, others must construct the logical derivations. So you see zeteticism is a science founded entirely on logic.

However, how can one who holds such harsh ideals for the acceptance of scientific data turn around and then start mythologizing about sky mirrors and ice walls and all other sorts of wholly unsubstantiated phenomena? Why not hold those ideas to the same rigid standards? That is what I call hypocrisy.

And yet these are not mythologies, these things are the derivations of zetetic science. Every belief is held to the same standards in zetetic study. To the uninitiated these seem eclectic and mysterious. To those in full development of the zetetic and logical faculties, combined in harmony, this process is transparent and absolute.

I hope this post is of great help to you my friend. Go well in study.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM »
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

TL;DR you may not be idiots, but you're no better than the rest of us

It is an argument of following form:
Let L(x) = x is a piece of [L]and
Let R(x) = the Earth [R]elates to x
Let f = a [F]lat piece of land

∀xL(x) → R(x)
L(f)

R(f)

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 06:37:42 PM by Thevoiceofreason »

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2010, 04:57:39 AM »
When thevoiceofreason says "you" he means it in its plural form, and is referring to FE'ers as a whole.

I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.

This is coming from the guy who used this..




.. for evidence of the satanic conspiracy.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 05:12:21 AM by Catchpa »
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2010, 05:08:35 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%88%80
Quote
The symbol ? bears the same shape of ? (a capital turned A) and is used in mathematics and logic to identify universal quantification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 05:10:20 AM by Space Tourist »
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2010, 07:38:32 AM »
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Lorddave

  • 15972
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2010, 01:03:39 PM »
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Logic is using a series of True or False statements to evaluate a larger statement for it's validity. 

Q and P, Q or P, Not Q, Not P, Not Q and P, Not Q or P. Q And Not P, Q or Not P.
You also have XOR but that's really just a combination of AND and OR to produce an "P OR Q  AND NOT(P AND Q)"

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16560
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2010, 01:41:06 PM »
Indeed James, many who claim to know everything about logic lack even the ability to use it and need to edify themselves.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2010, 05:27:32 PM »
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Lorddave

  • 15972
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2010, 07:09:59 PM »
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.

Which one?

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2010, 06:17:31 AM »
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ? meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.

Thankfully, science relies more heavily on comprehensive datasets and observation before conclusions enter play.

If I start out with the premise that the earth looks flat around my immediate perspective, then sure, using 'logic' I can figure out all sorts of things about the flat earth and I might even reach similar conclusions as you. Unfortunately, as FET has clearly shown, logic alone is about as useful or applicable as philosophy, and as a result, no one can agree on basic fundamentals except for the fact that the earth is flat (because that's where everyone started their argument) . It can't produce mathematical models, since no experiment or data collection is involved, and it certainly fails to correct for human bias, which is the entire purpose of the scientific method.

So, if two people can't even reach similar conclusions based on logic or Zetetiscm(sp?), or even get close to providing any sort of workable equations or predictions, the 'theory' is utterly useless.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2010, 06:55:09 AM »
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2010, 07:02:41 AM »
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now Sliver, I don't wish to be facetious, but I'm interested to know what your definition of a logical argument is - tell me please. Perhaps we are working on different understandings of what is required for an argument to have logical validity? Please post yours and then I will post mine.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2010, 07:07:22 AM »
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now Sliver, I don't wish to be facetious, but I'm interested to know what your definition of a logical argument is - tell me please. Perhaps we are working on different understandings of what is required for an argument to have logical validity? Please post yours and then I will post mine.

Well, first off, I like how you did not deny the troll label I put on you.  And second...
log·ic
? ?/?l?d??k/ Show Spelled[loj-ik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
6.
Computers . logic circuit.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2010, 09:46:13 AM »
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2010, 10:55:59 AM »
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

When the facts can't be argued, turn to semantics! Another thread derailed.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2010, 11:04:36 AM »
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

When the facts can't be argued, turn to semantics! Another thread derailed.

I was not the person who brought up logic, it was a globularist. Be consistent.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40132
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2010, 01:32:01 PM »
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?
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.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2010, 01:38:16 PM »
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?

No, it is a denial of their being illogical.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2010, 01:59:57 PM »
James, please answer the following. Which one of the flat earth models are logical?

@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ? meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.

Which one?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2010, 02:03:24 PM »
All Flat Earth theories are logically valid.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2010, 02:10:26 PM »
All Flat Earth theories are logically valid.

A global conspiracy is any thing but logical. Lets not even get started on said motives of it >.>
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere