Discovery vs theory

  • 6 Replies
  • 1781 Views
Discovery vs theory
« on: October 04, 2011, 12:42:56 PM »
I'll post this again, since it seems like an FE mod deleted it for no apparent reason, before it even got an answer...maybe because of certain words i used, which i edited out.

RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY. You should look up the difference...

If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you REFUSE to see its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.

Just like for earth. You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat, therefore it IS flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet. Which have been made. and verified. And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.

What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".

You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.

Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.

Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery (out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness), doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted. Nor does it make your FET any more valid or plausible.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 12:48:42 PM by gnnmsf »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Discovery vs theory
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2011, 01:01:26 PM »
If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you REFUSE to see its a flower

People have more fake flowers in their homes than real ones. Why would you assume that any flower you find is real?

Look at these flowers I found:



Fake or real?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Discovery vs theory
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2011, 01:05:30 PM »
I'll post this again, since it seems like an FE mod deleted it for no apparent reason, before it even got an answer...maybe because of certain words i used, which i edited out.

RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY. You should look up the difference...

If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you REFUSE to see its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.

Just like for earth. You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat, therefore it IS flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet. Which have been made. and verified. And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.

What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".

You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.

Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.

Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery (out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness), doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted. Nor does it make your FET any more valid or plausible.

Your thread wasn't deleted; it was moved to FE General, because it wasn't worthy of FE Debate.

Re: Discovery vs theory
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2011, 01:23:43 PM »
If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you REFUSE to see its a flower

People have more fake flowers in their homes than real ones. Why would you assume that any flower you find is real?

Look at these flowers I found:



Fake or real?

Is that the only argument you could come up with?? or are you trying to escape having to answer to the fact that your whole theory is based on sophisms??

Re: Discovery vs theory
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2011, 01:24:44 PM »
I'll post this again, since it seems like an FE mod deleted it for no apparent reason, before it even got an answer...maybe because of certain words i used, which i edited out.

RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY. You should look up the difference...

If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you REFUSE to see its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.

Just like for earth. You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat, therefore it IS flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet. Which have been made. and verified. And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.

What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".

You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.

Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.

Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery (out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness), doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted. Nor does it make your FET any more valid or plausible.

Your thread wasn't deleted; it was moved to FE General, because it wasn't worthy of FE Debate.

Oh really??? So you don't think its important to differentiate discovery from theory??? Fact from fiction??

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Discovery vs theory
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2011, 01:38:39 PM »
I'll post this again, since it seems like an FE mod deleted it for no apparent reason, before it even got an answer...maybe because of certain words i used, which i edited out.

RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY. You should look up the difference...

If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you REFUSE to see its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.

Just like for earth. You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat, therefore it IS flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet. Which have been made. and verified. And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.

What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".

You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.

Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.

Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery (out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness), doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted. Nor does it make your FET any more valid or plausible.

Your thread wasn't deleted; it was moved to FE General, because it wasn't worthy of FE Debate.

Oh really??? So you don't think its important to differentiate discovery from theory??? Fact from fiction??

FE Debate is for the debating of FE Theory, not for angry noobs who think they've found a flaw in our logic. If you start a thread here, it should be about the science of a part of the theory, such as the physics of the Sun. And it shouldn't be a question; those go in Q&A.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Discovery vs theory
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2011, 01:43:48 PM »
I'll post this again, since it seems like an FE mod deleted it for no apparent reason, before it even got an answer...maybe because of certain words i used, which i edited out.

No, you were simply looking in the wrong forum.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51051.0

Thread locked.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?