Bogus Science

  • 24 Replies
  • 1755 Views
*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Bogus Science
« on: October 03, 2010, 11:36:15 AM »
I have read over the Q and A page of this forum, and it is showing some classic signs of Bogus Science. I respect everyone's opinion here on how this FET works, but it simply does not make sense to me. Therefore I am not going to argue it. However, what I am going to do is use some of the ideas my Professor presented to me in order to reveal some of the flaws in the explanations here.

This is from the website Warning Signs of Bogus Science, find it on google if you want.

1. The idea is pitched directly to the media --> this does not apply here, since the media was not defined the same when this idea was first created in ancient times.
2. Claims of suppression --> this suggests that some higher power is trying to suppress the work that is the "truth", such as governments or organizations. This is the suggestion here, that there is some kind of grand Conspiracy that is hiding the truth. Suggestions of such things is a warning sign of science not backed by evidence. There is no benefit in hiding the truth about something that is real.
3. Nearly impossible to detect --> I have not read all the threads pertaining to DE or these giant ice walls, but from the QA page I got the idea that these things cannot be detected. This is again caused by instruments that will not allow you to see or detect them. If there is evidence to suggest that these do exist, then why has no one else been able to find it? It seems that perhaps FEers are the only ones who can find this evidence.
4. Evidence is anecdotal --> from the threads I have read, it appears that all of the evidence is in fact anecdotal, all things people have said or read. Evidence through empirical reasoning and logic is the way science works in the current day, and without these things it is not a valid scientific theory.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries --> this is a huge one here. Just because the idea did endure and was created a long time ago, does not make it any more credible.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation --> this applies more to theories that are particular to one person, and this is not the case here. Many people have argued for this theory, and therefore have not worked in isolation.
And finally, 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation or theory ---> if the new theory must remake the cosmos, it must have some pretty damn good evidence to back it up, or else it's just not credible.

Over all, I'm sure I'm going to have tons of criticism from this post. However, I know already that people some people are going to target number 6 right away, saying something along the lines of "ha, since #6 doesn't work, your whole post is useless". And before they do this, I'm going to point out, no, it doesn't make my post useless. That's just nonsense.

What I want from people is the evidence. Show me the studies, show me the statistics and the scientific reviews that promote this theory. They have to be fairly modern (1980s and up) to be credible (no ancient stuff) and there better be a lot of them if your going to reshape how the entire world works.

PS. On a more personal note, the earth is not special. Just because we live on it doesn't make it special. It's a hunk of rock floating in an endless abyss just like every other hunk of rock.   
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2010, 12:28:57 PM »
.
What I want from people is the evidence. Show me the studies, show me the statistics and the scientific reviews that promote this theory. They have to be fairly modern (1980s and up) to be credible (no ancient stuff) and there better be a lot of them if your going to reshape how the entire world works.

PS. On a more personal note, the earth is not special. Just because we live on it doesn't make it special. It's a hunk of rock floating in an endless abyss just like every other hunk of rock.   
1980s and up to be credible eh?  Do you have any real basis for this arbitrary time span?  Did New Wave music change the way the universe works?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12249
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2010, 12:30:36 PM »
Clothes are too old to be credible. I suggest that we stop wearing them to gain credibility.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2010, 12:35:41 PM »
@Username: I simply put that because I wanted a reference for "modern".
@Pizza: That is really irrelevant to the topic you know. Besides, if you're wearing clothes you've had for thirty years, I suggest you go shopping.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2010, 12:51:05 PM »
@Username: I simply put that because I wanted a reference for "modern".
@Pizza: That is really irrelevant to the topic you know. Besides, if you're wearing clothes you've had for thirty years, I suggest you go shopping.
Ah modern, so anything during or after the 16th century then?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2010, 01:01:52 PM »
Are we really considering the 16th century modern? If so, I'd hate to take some form of medication labeled "modern" from the 16th century. No, I mean 19th, 20th and 21st century. By definition modern means: "b.  Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date". This is really irrelevant anyways. So far I have not heard anything that answers my request.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12249
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2010, 01:04:14 PM »
@Pizza: That is really irrelevant to the topic you know.
Incorrect. It follows your logic perfectly well, and is relevant to your logic.

Besides, if you're wearing clothes you've had for thirty years, I suggest you go shopping.
We're talking about the concept of clothes, not clothes themselves.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2010, 01:10:16 PM »
You said Clothes, not the Concept of Clothes. Regardless, all of this is useless banter unless you show me something real. I can here for evidence not for fluff words.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2010, 01:12:23 PM »
came not can*
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2010, 01:14:02 PM »
Are we really considering the 16th century modern? If so, I'd hate to take some form of medication labeled "modern" from the 16th century. No, I mean 19th, 20th and 21st century. By definition modern means: "b.  Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date". This is really irrelevant anyways. So far I have not heard anything that answers my request.

Oh, so if everything in the 16th century is wrong or outdated, then I guess Issac Newton's works must be tossed right out the window based on its antiquity, right?

Albert Einstein published his work on Relativity in 1905. It should go right out the window without a second thought as well, right?

Aristotle published his equations for the buoyancy of bodies in water in 300 B.C. That's over two thousand years ago! Surely such equations must be incorrect.

Quite the contrary. Aristotle's equations for buoyancy worked just as well then as they do now. Any argument that science from the past must be disregarded is fallacious and without merit. Truth does not have an expiration date.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 01:21:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2010, 01:19:03 PM »
Are we really considering the 16th century modern? If so, I'd hate to take some form of medication labeled "modern" from the 16th century. No, I mean 19th, 20th and 21st century. By definition modern means: "b.  Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date". This is really irrelevant anyways. So far I have not heard anything that answers my request.
The modern era began in the 16th century.  Perhaps you want contemporary sources?

I just don't see why evidence from any time period should be ignored.  Like I said, its not like the Earth has changed drastically.  If the evidence itself is credible, I don't understand the relevance of its date has in and of itself.

The easiest way to verify you are indeed not on a globe would be to take accurate measurings of gravimetric data in a context inclusive of the local geography, altitude, and the pull of the heavens.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2010, 01:20:13 PM »
Wow you all really like to dodge around the topic don't you.
Those things are not irrelevant and shouldn't be thrown out, your correct. The time frame is simply for my question, not for a rule of life. If you read the question properly you'd know this. It was simply a condition for the evidence I wanted to see. Buoyancy and Newton's work really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

On that topic though, those theories are valid because there has been no evidence widely accepted to disprove them. The fact their old doesn't have anything to do with it.

Quit dodging the question.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

Lorddave

  • 16032
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2010, 01:21:11 PM »
The question is irrelevant.

FET requires that most science be bogus.

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2010, 01:25:19 PM »
If the question is irrelevant, then why did I bother asking it?
Yeah, if it requires that, then it really is flawed. If you're going to say it requires most science to be wrong, you'd need a pretty big book to prove each theory wrong in order to make FET truth.

@Username: Thank you, you are the first person to try and actually answer my question. Also, the Earth may not have changed much, but our understanding of it has. Theories are meant to come and go as new evidence arises, not all theories get to stick like gravity and Relativity.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12249
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2010, 01:26:22 PM »
You said Clothes, not the Concept of Clothes. Regardless, all of this is useless banter unless you show me something real. I can here for evidence not for fluff words.
Yes, I said clothes. Clothes are an old invention. No longer credible.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2010, 01:31:45 PM »
As I said above: Those theories are valid because there has been no evidence widely accepted to disprove them. The fact their old doesn't have anything to do with it. The fact that we wear clothing is still widely accepted as good nature to each other. Therefore still valid. Key words, WIDELY ACCEPTED.
Besides, the idea of clothing isn't scientific its more social, and that's not relevant to this topic.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

Lorddave

  • 16032
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2010, 01:32:58 PM »
If the question is irrelevant, then why did I bother asking it?
Yeah, if it requires that, then it really is flawed. If you're going to say it requires most science to be wrong, you'd need a pretty big book to prove each theory wrong in order to make FET truth.

Because you're new and new people ask questions.

FET and all of it's components are mostly an attempt to provide an alternate explanation to the same things viewed on a Round Earth.  It's really more Anti-Round Earth than Flat Earth.
The simple fact is that there is no physical way to create the motion of the heavens as we see them without turning stars off or making them polarized based on location on the Earth or what-have you.  The Sun alone requires all known physics about energy to be thrown out since a Star 32 miles in diameter couldn't possibly hold enough mass to generate the kind of power it does.  
Gravity would have to also be thrown out or have "anti-gravity field" added somewhere.

Light would have to either bend on it's own in a vacuum or the laws of perspective would have to be thrown out in favor of something else.

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2010, 01:39:26 PM »
So your saying my question is invalid because I'm new? That seems a little harsh don't you think? Furthermore, if I'm so new and full of irrelevant questions, why are you bothering with me?

As you said the FET is more just an Anti-Round Earth theory, so it doesn't actually have any standings of it's own, it's just a way to find holes in the Round Earth theory without actually having a basis of its own.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12249
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2010, 01:44:50 PM »
So your saying my question is invalid because I'm new?
No. You just need to lurk moar.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2010, 01:55:19 PM »
And my question still remains unanswered. I will not lurk more. If it is not run on evidence, it is not science.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

Lorddave

  • 16032
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 01:59:09 PM »
So your saying my question is invalid because I'm new? That seems a little harsh don't you think? Furthermore, if I'm so new and full of irrelevant questions, why are you bothering with me?

As you said the FET is more just an Anti-Round Earth theory, so it doesn't actually have any standings of it's own, it's just a way to find holes in the Round Earth theory without actually having a basis of its own.

In a way. Your question is irrelevant because asking what has been asked a thousand times before will change nothing nor will you understand this forum with that question.

What you should ask is "why am I here?"

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2010, 02:19:20 PM »
And my question still remains unanswered. I will not lurk more. If it is not run on evidence, it is not science.
TMT, you are sincere in your quest for FE answers .  It really does help to study the resources within the site.  You may be surprised that what you have been taught up to now is not the reality you learned. Give it a go and see for yourself. 

*

TheMightyToad

  • 15
  • In life there can be no truth, only opinion.
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2010, 02:27:11 PM »
@Lord: Just because a question has been asked a thousand times does not make it invalid. Perhaps your right, perhaps that is the question I need to ask myself. 
@Gotham: Thank you. I came here looking for the evidence to support this theory. I have read the Q & A page, and that seems to be the one to turn to. Reading posts on here would take a long time, granted, because there are so many. You could be right in that I may find out something new, and that would be amazing, but just from what I've heard so far, I'm not entirely convinced I will.

The science in this whole place is well thought out indeed, I have no arguments there with anyone (if that's what anyone is thinking) but...a giant conspiracy? Really? It just doesn't seem worth all the trouble is all.
"Lost, yesterday, somewhere between Sunrise and Sunset, two golden hours, each set with sixty diamond minutes. No reward is offered, for they are gone forever."

*

Lorddave

  • 16032
Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2010, 01:03:15 PM »
Sorry, I was being cynical.


Basically FET is all about disproving Round Earth explanations by thought experiments alone.  There is no hard science here, no proof, no documentation, no pictures, and no viable experiments proposed.

Plus, most people who argue for FET are Devil's Advocates or trolls.  The best way to survive here is to be here only for the desire to debate.  Even the desire to just learn what FET is all about is disappointing since there isn't any unified (or functioning) model.  It's all just a bunch of parts that don't quite fit together.

Now the bottom forums are full of the good stuff.

Re: Bogus Science
« Reply #24 on: October 05, 2010, 01:32:06 PM »
Just ask them a question they can't answer. FEr's don't feel like they have to answer any question with evidence because they typically argue from a Carl Sagan's dragon position, intentional ignorance, or from a Trolling POV. The math behind modern navigation is all you really need to kill the FE theory completely. 16th century thinking includes to notion of an RE to btw. So really it's a moot point to make.

And do realize that this site is considered by most people on the web as a Joke site.  ::)
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?