The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate

I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

This is where you went wrong.  

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.

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.

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).

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).

Quote from: amazed 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)

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.

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

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)?

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

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

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

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.

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

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?

Quote from: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: amazed 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)

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.

The symbol ? bears the same shape of ? (a capital turned A) and is used in mathematics and logic to identify universal quantification.

@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.

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.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason 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.

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

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM

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.

Quote from: James on May 21, 2010, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason 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.

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

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM

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.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:03:39 PM

Quote from: James on May 21, 2010, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason 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.

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

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM

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.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:03:39 PM

Quote from: James on May 21, 2010, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason 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.

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

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 04:47:12 PM

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

Quote from: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 06:55:09 AM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 04:47:12 PM

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.

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?

Quote from: James 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?

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

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?

Quote from: James 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?

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

Quote from: James on May 21, 2010, 05:27:32 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:03:39 PM

Quote from: James on May 21, 2010, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason 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.

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

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM

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?

All Flat Earth theories are logically valid.