[REDACTED]

  • 133 Replies
  • 14653 Views
[REDACTED]
« on: July 22, 2010, 11:46:45 PM »
[REDACTED]  :-X
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 02:52:26 PM by oogabubchub »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2010, 12:08:38 AM »
While you're emailing old professors, send one to your sociology professor asking him or her about conditioned responses to ideas that contradict what a persons individual social institutions have instilled in them.  Ask how this conditioning relates to the Nuremberg Trials and Zimbardo's work.  You're the product of generations of indoctrination.

As Carl Sagan said, "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2010, 12:29:24 AM »
That's correct, society would not be where it is today without the lessons taught from institutions.  They are a way to pass information onto new generations and act as a "brain" outside the body in that sense.  They are the true shape of morality by instilling in us social norms and mores.  However, they are also very powerful in that the vast majority of people are highly influenced by what these institutions tell them.  For example, in most rural parts of America right now, there is a strong support for ideas such as a non-Darwinian explanation for the diversity of life.  When your family, preacher, friends, and school (perhaps just alluding to it in this case) all tell you that Darwin is a quack and the Bible is the true meaning of a man, it is very difficult to question it.  These people "know" that Darwin is wrong because that's what their individual institutions have told them.  They do not look at the evidence, they dismiss facts offhandedly, and they balk at ignorance of the opposition.

So, I'm not saying that everything an institution teaches you is wrong, I'm saying -- and so would Carl Sagan -- that you need to have the courage to challenge these preconceptions and seek answers for yourself though skeptical eyes.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2010, 12:59:25 AM »
Yes, and when you do, if you are right, then it comes out. The Chuch in the Medieval Age was the teaching institution, it was a powerful brainwasher, and some of the things they teached people was that Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Even as powerful and intimidating Church was, a few people, observing the world, came to the conclusion that Earth was round and not the center of the universe. They wer punished, prosecuted, their books forbidden... but they were right, and people accepted it. If you FE'ers were right, you could provide proof, you would be able to prove that theories based in a round earth are not accurate, and that the predictions of your model are closer with what we can observe and experiment. But you didn't, and that's whay nobody believes you. Because you haven't provide with a single proof more than "look at the window, what do you see?".

People are not so reticent to accept new things: Relativity was a revolution, wasn't it? Time is not absolute! But people accepted it because the predictions of the theory were in accordance what the experiments, while the old Newton mechanic was not when speed was close to the speed of light. And Quantum Mechanics? It was even worse! we cannot measure perfectly the speed and position of particles!! Incredible! But people accepted it, because it was in accordance with experiments, and the theory made predictions that were confirmed later.

If your theory of a flat earth were right, people would accept it. But reality is that no one has seen that Ice Wall, or soldiers guarding it. Reality is that travels from south america to south africa don't take as longer as they should according to your maps. Reality is that, when looking at the sun, its path across the sky doesn't match the predictions your theory make. Reality is that people has gone to the south pole, has been around the world in all directions, and they never reported anything about "Ice walls" or the end of the world. Sorry.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 01:02:29 AM by oscpaz00 »

*

Lorddave

  • 15967
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2010, 10:13:19 AM »
Thank you for stating the obvious. You hit all the important points so there really isn't more to say except that all of FET is making up pseudo-science explanations for observed phenomenon.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2010, 10:36:42 AM »
Yes, and when you do, if you are right, then it comes out. The Chuch in the Medieval Age was the teaching institution, it was a powerful brainwasher, and some of the things they teached people was that Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

First of all, yes this is OT, and I realize that, and I'm not trying to start a new debate or anything, and I have no interest in responding to the OP because I think he's right about some things and misunderstood about others but with the proper amount of lurking I believe he's intelligent enough to see where he's mistaken.  The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself I feel no need to challenge his assertions; I've already responded to posts like his on a number of occasions.  My purpose in responding to you is simply to correct a popular misconception about the Church of the Middle Ages, and thus educate you and maybe help you feel like you got something useful from this site after all, whatever you think of the debate itself.

The Church of the Middle Ages did not teach that the Earth is flat.  They believed it was round.  In fact, it's always been the Church's official position that the Earth is round, since it was first formed as a cohesive unit.

That is all.

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2010, 11:19:11 AM »
While you're emailing old professors, send one to your sociology professor asking him or her about conditioned responses to ideas that contradict what a persons individual social institutions have instilled in them.  Ask how this conditioning relates to the Nuremberg Trials and Zimbardo's work.

Sure.

The earth is round! Look ships are going over the horizon!
You filthy nazi! Always trying to pretend you're only folloving der orderz!

It's not indoctrination. Anyone can check if the earth is flat. I suggest they perform the experiments in ENaG and find out for themselves that it isn't.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2010, 01:37:11 PM »
 The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself...
Also OT, but why does your title say Flat Earth Theorist if you don't believe in FE? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

I theorize about FE.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2010, 01:44:26 PM »
 The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself...
Also OT, but why does your title say Flat Earth Theorist if you don't believe in FE? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

I theorize about FE.
...Since you seem to be an intelligent guy, I'm sure you know that I wasn't asking my question to find out that Flat Earth Theorist means one who theorizes about the Flat Earth. My question implies more specifically: Why do you theorize about something you don't believe in, or said another way, Why do you not believe in something you theorize? I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out for you.

Why not?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2010, 02:02:43 PM »
That's basically what I was thinking too. Isn't life too short to worry about and theorize about things that you don't even think are possible?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2010, 02:11:35 PM »
 The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself...
Also OT, but why does your title say Flat Earth Theorist if you don't believe in FE? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

I theorize about FE.
...Since you seem to be an intelligent guy, I'm sure you know that I wasn't asking my question to find out that Flat Earth Theorist means one who theorizes about the Flat Earth. My question implies more specifically: Why do you theorize about something you don't believe in, or said another way, Why do you not believe in something you theorize? I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out for you.

Why not?
Sorry, I think I've mistaken you for someone who was interested in intelligent and enlightening conversation as opposed to simplistic and uninformative responses.

"Why not?" is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Why?"  Ask any philosophy professor.

Quote
To put it even more explicitly, we as humans can only think about, theorize, or do a limited amount at any one point in time. You have decided spending time and energy theorizing about something you don't believe in is more valuable than doing anything else at this moment. Why is it more valuable to you to spend resources on something you don't believe in?

I find the subject interesting.  
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2010, 02:13:06 PM »
I find the subject interesting.  

So it's like Pokemon? except more intellectually demanding??

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2010, 02:13:31 PM »
I find the subject interesting.  

So it's like Pokemon? except more intellectually demanding??

Ugh.  Not at all.  Pokemon sucks.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2010, 10:32:35 PM »
Congrats, either you are an alt or it didn't take you very long to learn how things work around here. Stick around, its really kinda fun once you know what the rules are.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2010, 03:48:35 AM »
I theorize about FE.

Ah I see you're suffering from Johndavisosis of the brain. How can you theorize about something you do not believe is true?

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2010, 04:31:55 AM »
Since I'm sure you knew what I meant, you could have easily provided this response without having to run around in circles. It seems like there's a lot of that going on in this forum.

That's how things work here.  When they can't actually defend something, they're likely to run you around in rhetoric by nitpicking at your choice of words.  I think there are two or three actual believers, but the rest are just honing their argumentative skills by playing pretend and learning when to subtly slip in a fallacy.  Welcome to the forest of trolls.
Helpful hint: All FEers believe in their own particular brand.  They'll rarely if ever agree.  No matter how convincing your case, the ones to respond will likely be those who don't believe that specific facet of it (floodlight/skymirror/perspective/EA/gravity).

*

Lorddave

  • 15967
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2010, 09:52:20 AM »
Congrats, either you are an alt or it didn't take you very long to learn how things work around here. Stick around, its really kinda fun once you know what the rules are.

I remember how long it took me to figure out the rules.  Ugh... someone needs to write a rule book.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2010, 04:59:20 PM »
At the very least FET is an interesting thought experiment to some of the RE'ers here.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2010, 02:22:18 AM »
I theorize about FE.

Ah I see you're suffering from Johndavisosis of the brain. How can you theorize about something you do not believe is true?

... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.  No advances in science or even culture.  I submit that you even being able to type that sentence is the zenith of a long strain of ideas and concepts that challenged and overthrew their predating paradigms.  In many cases, I'm sure the theories stood on the shoulders of the perception of impossibility.

You ask how you can theorize in something you do not believe?  I ask how can mankind not?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2010, 02:59:57 AM »
You ask how you can theorize in something you do not believe?  I ask how can mankind not?
I think you are mixing up "fantasize" and "theorize". In FE context we speak about science and FE doesn't quite fit under scientific theory(it's been discussed elsewhere, so I don't argue about that here). It's like if I see holes in street then I can fantasize about little asphalt leprechauns who are nagging holes into asphalt road. I can't find any observations about them other than holes in the road and not any scientific experiments or observations to find evidence about them. So I can fantasize, not theorize.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2010, 07:45:25 AM »
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2010, 12:51:24 PM »
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

Nah.  I disagree.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2010, 01:37:30 PM »
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorize about it.

I fail to see how theorizing about something and not believing in something are mutually exclusive.
Lets look at what a theory is.

Quote
theory: a hypothesis; a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

I don't see how thinking about how the world could be is impossible if you don't believe it is actually that way. I could theorize how waterbending would scientifically work, even if I know it isn't real.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2010, 01:55:09 PM »
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorize about it.

I fail to see how theorizing about something and not believing in something are mutually exclusive.
Lets look at what a theory is.

Quote
theory: a hypothesis; a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

I don't see how thinking about how the world could be is impossible if you don't believe it is actually that way. I could theorize how waterbending would scientifically work, even if I know it isn't real.
The point is that when you know it isn't real then you can't theorize, in the scientific sense, about it. The Scientific Theory starts with the possible, not what you know to be false.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12239
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2010, 01:58:17 PM »
ITT: More semantics failure. To believe != to know. You can theorize about things you don't believe to be true. You might even reach a point at which your beliefs will change.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2010, 02:07:10 PM »
ITT: More semantics failure. To believe != to know. You can theorize about things you don't believe to be true. You might even reach a point at which your beliefs will change.
Again, you're confusing terms. The OP of the claim was quite clear. In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false. Science has Facts. Math has Facts. I can theorize about what would happen if an assumption was false, such as that a figure may be moved without affecting its size (That's one of Euclid's postulates.) I cannot though theorize, in the scientific sense, if a Fact were false. I cannot theorize that the world under the falsehood that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter. Once I start with something that we know is false than I can prove everything, whether true or false.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2010, 02:27:03 PM »
Lets look at what a theory is.

Quote
theory: a hypothesis; a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
I fail to see that "theorizing" about flat earth would explain anything. As all can see it only raises new questions and fails to explain already explained phenomenas.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 03:00:59 AM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2010, 02:54:13 PM »
Think of life as one big exercise in game theory or economics. If the probability of a certain ideology's success or truth in the real world is really, really low in your mind, then the amount of work you put into it likely isn't worth the returns. Life is very short.

(assuming you're serious and trying to get real research done. If you're not, then I guess it can be a hobby)

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2010, 02:59:05 PM »
Think of life as one big exercise in game theory or economics. If the probability of a certain ideology's success or truth in the real world is really, really low in your mind, then the amount of work you put into it likely isn't worth the returns. Life is very short.

(assuming you're serious and trying to get real research done. If you're not, then I guess it can be a hobby)

I think that for Roundy, as with most advocates, theorizing about FE is just like a hobby.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2010, 03:44:56 PM »
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?