Rowbotham's style of logic

  • 91 Replies
  • 12787 Views
?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Rowbotham's style of logic
« on: July 18, 2011, 03:09:05 PM »
I was reading Earth Not a Globe just now, and I came accross this statement:
"We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false."

He claims to have proven the Earth's "rotundity" false, and bases his later argument on that "fact," but Rowbotham, being human, must be susceptible to errors.  In chapter 3, Rowbotham makes an argument where he tries to prove false, what is essentially the law of conservation of momentum, but fatally fails to take air resistance into account.  This removes any ground from arguments based on this proof.  That Rowbotham is unable to take into acount that any proof he makes may have errors, tells me that the entirety of ENaG's explanations for observations may not necessarily reflect reality.

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2011, 03:12:42 PM »
this type of logic is applied all over these boards.  all of the FEers take it as, "since the earth is inherently flat, any evidence to the contrary must be false, regardless of the data obtained."

Ignorance has no limits with some minds it seems

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2011, 03:23:21 PM »
Rowboatman is not infallible.

?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2011, 03:28:31 PM »
Rowboatman is not infallible.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-25
Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides
Galileo wasn't always wrong.

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2011, 03:31:57 PM »
I love the way nobody attempts an intelligent rebuttal.  Just everything along the line of "he made some mistakes but we will still use his theories to "disprove" random facets of RE theory."

 ::)

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2011, 03:33:56 PM »
I love the way nobody attempts an intelligent rebuttal.  Just everything along the line of "he made some mistakes but we will still use his theories to "disprove" random facets of RE theory."

 ::)

>implying that Aristotle was infallible

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2011, 04:13:44 PM »
That Rowbotham is unable to take into acount that any proof he makes may have errors, tells me that the entirety of ENaG's explanations for observations may not necessarily reflect reality.

You're a bit late to the party.

Besides, we haven't seen John's model yet.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2011, 04:16:03 PM »
I was reading Earth Not a Globe just now, and I came accross this statement:
"We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false."

This is a correct statement by Rowbotham. Over the course of 30 years of intensive study Rowbotham performed experiments which have demonstrated on numerous occasions that there is no curvature to standing water, disproving the Round Earth theory.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2011, 04:22:19 PM »
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-25
Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides
Galileo wasn't always wrong.
Irrelevent.  We are not discussing Galileo.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2011, 04:27:51 PM »
I was reading Earth Not a Globe just now, and I came accross this statement:
"We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false."

This is a correct statement by Rowbotham. Over the course of 30 years of intensive study Rowbotham performed experiments which have demonstrated on numerous occasions that there is no curvature to standing water, disproving the Round Earth theory.

He could have said, "Based on my previous findings" rather than "because this has been proved." 

I'm not reading the book in order, so I admit to not being able to comment about his experiments until I get to those parts.  I simply wanted to point out that he does make errors in his logic, which can affect both logical conclusions, and his ability to identify what he is seeing during an experiment.

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2011, 04:50:13 PM »
it is not science if you don't include results simply because you believe they cannot be true.  his work is pseudoscience

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2011, 05:30:38 PM »
it is not science if you don't include results simply because you believe they cannot be true.  his work is pseudoscience

It's quite interesting how globularists want to take anyone's methodology and pull it down into their "science" rut to denigrate it, as if they own some panacea of truth.  When people really study Rowbotham's methods they would have to concede the superiority of his process, if they are being honest with themselves. 

« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 05:36:08 PM by gotham »

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2011, 05:33:56 PM »
His superior process rewarded him with a questionable experiment that proved inconclusive. Science is no panacea of truth.

Also, denigrate*

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2011, 05:35:45 PM »
His superior process rewarded him with a questionable experiment that proved inconclusive. Science is no panacea of truth.

Also, denigrate*

Thanks for the spell check...the one I used must need some repair.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2011, 05:37:34 PM »
I wasn't sure if you meant denigrate or degenerate. Then I realised degenerate makes no sense in that context.

derpin'

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2011, 05:38:17 PM »
it is not science if you don't include results simply because you believe they cannot be true.  his work is pseudoscience

It's quite interesting how globularists want to take anyone's methodology and pull it down into their "science" rut to denegrate it, as if they own some panacea of truth.  When people really study Rowbotham's methods they would have to concede the superiority of his process, if they are being honest with themselves.

science is near and dear to me, and I have seen his work and its rubbish.  why don't you acknowledge the OP?  Rowbotham ignores evidence because it contradicts his world view.  its kind of a fact....

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2011, 06:24:28 PM »
it is not science if you don't include results simply because you believe they cannot be true.  his work is pseudoscience

It's quite interesting how globularists want to take anyone's methodology and pull it down into their "science" rut to denegrate it, as if they own some panacea of truth.  When people really study Rowbotham's methods they would have to concede the superiority of his process, if they are being honest with themselves.

science is near and dear to me, and I have seen his work and its rubbish.  why don't you acknowledge the OP?  Rowbotham ignores evidence because it contradicts his world view.  its kind of a fact....

The OP has been addressed, whether you were satisfied with the answers or not.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Fred

  • 120
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2011, 01:11:53 PM »
Over the course of 30 years of intensive study Rowbotham performed experiments which have demonstrated on numerous occasions that there is no curvature to standing water, disproving the Round Earth theory.

Is it not standard in the scientific community that one's experiments are only considered valid if they can be duplicated by other reputable scientists? It seems unlikely that no other scientist would be willing to attempt to verify a theory that has merit. The only conclusion to draw is that all other scientists believe Rowbotham's "proofs" were invalid. Even the craziest religious tenets have numerous supporters. Support for a flat earth theory is completely absent.

Regarding the notion of curvature on standing water, there's a lake near my home that is about two miles across. I'll bet that on calm waters, with a row boat, a six foot stick, and good binoculars, I could providing convincing proof of my own that there is curvature on standing water.
the true measure of maturity is the ability to comprehend the discomfort of another.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2011, 01:15:31 PM »
Please do, I'd like to see the results of that experiment.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2011, 02:24:34 PM »
Support for a flat earth theory is completely absent.

Perhaps you should lurk.

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2011, 02:30:28 PM »
Support for a flat earth theory is completely absent.

Perhaps you should lurk.

Any evidence for a flat Earth can also be explained by a round Earth. And, according to you, if something can be explained by two different theories, you can't count it as evidence.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2011, 02:32:03 PM »
Support for a flat earth theory is completely absent.

Perhaps you should lurk.

Any evidence for a flat Earth can also be explained by a round Earth. And, according to you, if something can be explained by two different theories, you can't count it as evidence.

How are Rowbotham's water convexity tests explained by a Round Earth?


Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2011, 02:34:15 PM »
Support for a flat earth theory is completely absent.

Perhaps you should lurk.

Any evidence for a flat Earth can also be explained by a round Earth. And, according to you, if something can be explained by two different theories, you can't count it as evidence.

How are Rowbotham's water convexity tests explained by a Round Earth?

Refraction.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2011, 02:41:45 PM »
Support for a flat earth theory is completely absent.

Perhaps you should lurk.

Any evidence for a flat Earth can also be explained by a round Earth. And, according to you, if something can be explained by two different theories, you can't count it as evidence.

How are Rowbotham's water convexity tests explained by a Round Earth?

Refraction.

Odd that these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed, placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 17 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2011, 02:47:49 PM »
The Bedford Level experiments are inconclusive.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2011, 02:52:32 PM »
The Bedford Level experiments are inconclusive.

Only if you imagine the existence of ridiculous chance mirages which appear every time the experiment is performed and adjust themselves in accordance to the distance the observer is looking across, to fool them into believing that they are living on a flat earth.

*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2011, 02:56:21 PM »
The Bedford Level experiments are inconclusive.

Only if you imagine the existence of ridiculous chance mirages which appear every time the experiment is performed and adjust themselves in accordance to the distance the observer is looking across, to fool them into believing that they are living on a flat earth.

Just like a imagine that hundreds of thousands of weather balloons are strung up over a flat earth so my GPS works.

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2011, 03:00:02 PM »
The Bedford Level experiments are inconclusive.

Only if you imagine the existence of ridiculous chance mirages which appear every time the experiment is performed and adjust themselves in accordance to the distance the observer is looking across, to fool them into believing that they are living on a flat earth.

The experiment has been done to support a concave, convex, and flat Earth. It is inconclusive.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2011, 03:01:36 PM »
The Bedford Level experiments are inconclusive.

Only if you imagine the existence of ridiculous chance mirages which appear every time the experiment is performed and adjust themselves in accordance to the distance the observer is looking across, to fool them into believing that they are living on a flat earth.

Just like a imagine that hundreds of thousands of weather balloons are strung up over a flat earth so my GPS works.

Maybe many thousands of high altitude balloons would be necessary for line of sight communication if the earth were a globe, but you should recall that the earth is flat.

Quote from: Harutsedo
The experiment has been done to support a concave, convex, and flat Earth. It is inconclusive.

Rowbotham did not observe a concave or a convex earth. His results are conclusive.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 03:06:08 PM by Tom Bishop »