Can you guys xplain something?

  • 74 Replies
  • 8998 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2010, 02:46:22 PM »
Assumptions are typically as wrong as statistics are wrong. Assuming a premise to be true without actually validating such a premise to be true is likely to be wrong. Arguing a negative does not win you credibility either Parsifal. Yes, an assumption can sometimes pan out to be true giving the evidence to back it up pans out to support it. However you are using assumptions in EAT as an attempt to prove EAT vs actually demonstrating, experimenting, providing data, or actually substantiating it. When an FE believer on this site can actually substantiate their assumptions as facts, I will kindly consider them up for peer review.

This started out looking like it was going somewhere, and then you brought up EAT which is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed in this thread.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2010, 02:52:10 PM »
Assumptions are typically as wrong as statistics are wrong. Assuming a premise to be true without actually validating such a premise to be true is likely to be wrong. Arguing a negative does not win you credibility either Parsifal. Yes, an assumption can sometimes pan out to be true giving the evidence to back it up pans out to support it. However you are using assumptions in EAT as an attempt to prove EAT vs actually demonstrating, experimenting, providing data, or actually substantiating it. When an FE believer on this site can actually substantiate their assumptions as facts, I will kindly consider them up for peer review.

This started out looking like it was going somewhere, and then you brought up EAT which is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed in this thread.

EAT is your own example of assumption being wrong. You can begin with that in regards to this discussion. And it was just an example of many other FE arguments that fail to meet the nature of validity in accordance to the scientific method. Claiming the Earth is Flat by assumption shows the weakness of the argument, and why it's pleading for credibility.

Under your premise of assumption, I am calling FE'r liars and that Earth is really a 100 sided die.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 03:01:26 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2010, 02:59:27 PM »
EAT is your own example of assumption being wrong. You can begin with that in regards to this discussion. And it was just an example of many other FE arguments that fail to meet the nature of validity in accordance to the scientific method.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the assertion made by CrackToter.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2010, 03:06:20 PM »
Read what you said.

Assuming a premise to be true without actually validating such a premise to be true is likely to be wrong.

This means that you are also likely to be correct. Meaning that ClockTower's statement that anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong, is wrong. Because sometimes people are still correct.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2010, 03:08:19 PM »
EAT is your own example of assumption being wrong. You can begin with that in regards to this discussion. And it was just an example of many other FE arguments that fail to meet the nature of validity in accordance to the scientific method.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the assertion made by CrackToter.

Crackwoter made a generalization. You seem to be trying to use this as a means of support for your own assertions. And I already sated that some assumptions can pan out to be correct when proven to be correct. Hence, even CrackTower's generalization will turn out to be correct more often than not within the context of his argument.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2010, 03:09:14 PM »
CrackToter made a generalization. You seem to be trying to use this as a means of support for your own assertions.

No, I'm simply pointing out that he's wrong.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2010, 03:13:13 PM »
Read what you said.

Assuming a premise to be true without actually validating such a premise to be true is likely to be wrong.

This means that you are also likely to be correct. Meaning that ClockTower's statement that anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong, is wrong. Because sometimes people are still correct.


Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it, substantiate it, or demonstrate it according to the scientific method. You are pleading to use assumption as evidence to garnish magical credibility. The premise of Earth being flat can not be established to be true through assumptions based on faith based pseudoscience, or through typical religious dogma. You might want to work on that.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #37 on: September 07, 2010, 03:14:55 PM »
CrackToter made a generalization. You seem to be trying to use this as a means of support for your own assertions.

No, I'm simply pointing out that he's wrong.

Ahh, he's not wrong. Assumption that the Earth is flat is not proof of the Earth being flat, especially when the assumption has shown to be entirely inconsistent with the real world. He's basically telling you that assumption is not going to magically give you credibility, or substantiate anything you say. And I agree that he over generalized, but I don't think that was the point he was trying to make.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 03:19:27 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2010, 03:16:32 PM »
Ahh, he's not wrong. Assumption is not proof of the Earth being flat.

Again, that is irrelevant to the claim he made. You seem to be experiencing some difficulty with interpreting simple English sentences.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #39 on: September 07, 2010, 03:17:35 PM »
EAT is your own example of assumption being wrong. You can begin with that in regards to this discussion. And it was just an example of many other FE arguments that fail to meet the nature of validity in accordance to the scientific method.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the assertion made by CrackToter.

Crackwoter made a generalization. You seem to be trying to use this as a means of support for your own assertions.

I am holding him to his words. Why shoulnd't I?

I see nowhere in his post were he asserts, "This is just a generalization guys".

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #40 on: September 07, 2010, 03:19:07 PM »
Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it

Validity has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually correct.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #41 on: September 07, 2010, 03:23:11 PM »
Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it

Validity has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually correct.

Actually one must validate such a claim before they can say anything is correct. Substantiation is a better word if you need one to use under this context. Your argument here is pleading to make an assumption magically a fact. That is what we call a play on ignorance.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #42 on: September 07, 2010, 03:26:50 PM »
Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it

Validity has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually correct.

Actually one must validate such a claim before they can say anything is correct. Substantiation is a better word if you need one to use under this context. Your argument here is pleading to make an assumption magically a fact. That is what we call a play on ignorance.

I think soundness is the proper word. You must make sure a claim is sound.

When did I ever say assumptions magically become facts? ClockTower and I were arguing whether or not it was a valid argument when you jumped in. It is. A bad inference form perhaps, but nonetheless is valid.

EDIT: Scratch that. Modus Ponus is always a good inference form. Whether or not you make assumptions is irrelevant to validity.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 03:33:36 PM by EnglshGentleman »

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2010, 04:36:17 PM »
How do you know that there is a conspiracy, if it's a conspiracy?
The Earth is flat. We know this.

But your assumption is based on hearsay, just like religion. Something tells me that you don't think the Earth is flat you're just here to troll.
The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken. -Samuel Johnson

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2010, 05:27:13 PM »
Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it

Validity has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually correct.

Actually one must validate such a claim before they can say anything is correct. Substantiation is a better word if you need one to use under this context. Your argument here is pleading to make an assumption magically a fact. That is what we call a play on ignorance.

I think soundness is the proper word. You must make sure a claim is sound.

When did I ever say assumptions magically become facts? ClockTower and I were arguing whether or not it was a valid argument when you jumped in. It is. A bad inference form perhaps, but nonetheless is valid.

EDIT: Scratch that. Modus Ponus is always a good inference form. Whether or not you make assumptions is irrelevant to validity.

Just because you think you can make a sound claim philosophically doesn't make it correct. Again I can claim the Earth is a 100 sided die and have that argument be philosophically sound by constructing it around a big pile of pseudoscience and a ideological construct. So the use of an assumption is entirely meaningless unless you can show such an assumption is correct.

Example:

We wouldn't want to convict an innocent man of a crime based off assumptions would we?
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2010, 05:30:50 PM »
Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it

Validity has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually correct.

Actually one must validate such a claim before they can say anything is correct. Substantiation is a better word if you need one to use under this context. Your argument here is pleading to make an assumption magically a fact. That is what we call a play on ignorance.

I think soundness is the proper word. You must make sure a claim is sound.

When did I ever say assumptions magically become facts? ClockTower and I were arguing whether or not it was a valid argument when you jumped in. It is. A bad inference form perhaps, but nonetheless is valid.

EDIT: Scratch that. Modus Ponus is always a good inference form. Whether or not you make assumptions is irrelevant to validity.

Just because you think you can make a sound claim philosophically doesn't make it correct. Again I can claim the Earth is a 100 sided die and have that argument be philosophically sound by constructing it around a big pile of pseudoscience and a ideological construct. So the use of an assumption is entirely meaningless unless you can show such an assumption is correct.

Example:

We wouldn't want to convict an innocent man of a crime based off assumptions would we?

When were we talking about things being correct? We were talking about things being valid.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2010, 05:34:06 PM »
Wrong, it only means you are likely to be correct if you can validate it

Validity has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually correct.

Actually one must validate such a claim before they can say anything is correct. Substantiation is a better word if you need one to use under this context. Your argument here is pleading to make an assumption magically a fact. That is what we call a play on ignorance.

I think soundness is the proper word. You must make sure a claim is sound.

When did I ever say assumptions magically become facts? ClockTower and I were arguing whether or not it was a valid argument when you jumped in. It is. A bad inference form perhaps, but nonetheless is valid.

EDIT: Scratch that. Modus Ponus is always a good inference form. Whether or not you make assumptions is irrelevant to validity.

Just because you think you can make a sound claim philosophically doesn't make it correct. Again I can claim the Earth is a 100 sided die and have that argument be philosophically sound by constructing it around a big pile of pseudoscience and a ideological construct. So the use of an assumption is entirely meaningless unless you can show such an assumption is correct.

Example:

We wouldn't want to convict an innocent man of a crime based off assumptions would we?

When were we talking about things being correct? We were talking about things being valid.

If something is incorrect it's only valid as being invalid.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2010, 05:45:28 PM »
We must be very careful when dealing with EG to only ask him specifically for correct answers. He just learned that something does not necessarily have to be correct to be technically valid, and has started using that fact to troll here. Be warned.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2010, 05:49:04 PM »
We must be very careful when dealing with EG to only ask him specifically for correct answers.

Why shouldn't I demand what I ask for? You guys do the exact same thing.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #49 on: September 07, 2010, 05:57:46 PM »
We must be very careful when dealing with EG to only ask him specifically for correct answers.

Why shouldn't I demand what I ask for? You guys do the exact same thing.

Learn to read, and at the very least take a course in navigation? Perhaps you can show us a coordinate system according to FE that is accurate and navigable.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2010, 06:01:55 PM »
We must be very careful when dealing with EG to only ask him specifically for correct answers.

Why shouldn't I demand what I ask for? You guys do the exact same thing.

Learn to read, and at the very least take a course in navigation? Perhaps you can show us a coordinate system according to FE that is accurate and navigable.

Irrelevant and off-topic. If you wish to discuss a coordinate system according to FE that is accurate and navigable you should create a thread about it.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2010, 06:12:36 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.

FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2010, 06:14:08 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.

This thread is about the conspiracy. I request you stop derailing it and create another thread about a coordinate system according to FE that is accurate and navigable you should create a thread about it.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2010, 06:16:24 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.

This thread is about the conspiracy. I request you stop derailing it and create another thread about a coordinate system according to FE that is accurate and navigable you should create a thread about it.
You invited the debate by saying FE is true, so you might want to take your own advice.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Torn Bishop

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2010, 06:18:54 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.



Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2010, 06:21:06 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.



Please read Earth Not a Globe.
Please don't waste our time with alts and fakes, TORN.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2010, 06:26:53 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.



Please read Earth Not a Globe.

LMAO.. We already discussed why that was entirely nonsensical in another thread Tom. Posting literature proven to be an epic failure is not what I would call a wise choice.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 06:36:43 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2010, 07:27:29 PM »
It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.

This thread is about the conspiracy. I request you stop derailing it and create another thread about a coordinate system according to FE that is accurate and navigable you should create a thread about it.
You invited the debate by saying FE is true, so you might want to take your own advice.

You should learn to read. This is what it says under, "What is Flat Earth General?"

Quote
Here you can freely discuss about the Flat Earth Society or the Flat Earth movement in general. For example, if you want to ask questions about The Conspiracy, flat earth believers and their beliefs, or anything else not related to Flat Earth Theory, this is the place for it. If you wish to discuss Flat Earth Theory itself, you should go to Flat Earth Q&A or Flat Earth Debate. Keep in mind that although somewhat relaxed, this forum is still subject to the Site Rules.

Once again, not everywhere in the upper fora is for debate Clocktower.

It's completely on Topic. If you want to assume FE is correct, I can ask you to demonstrate your assumption to be correct. Feel free to provide something other than assumptions, pseudoscience, or religious dogma to make your claims relevant.



Please read Earth Not a Globe.

LMAO.. We already discussed why that was entirely nonsensical in another thread Tom. Posting literature proven to be an epic failure is not what I would call a wise choice.

Someone just fell for a troll.

Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2010, 07:33:23 PM »
Quote
You invited the debate by saying FE is true, so you might want to take your own advice.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 07:36:38 PM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Can you guys xplain something?
« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2010, 07:35:44 PM »
Total fail quote. I suggest you take a breather, take a poo, and take a class to learn how to properly use the internet.