Conspiracy logic debate

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

So you don't believe the world is flat, but you're arguing from that perspective? Sounds like you're playing devil advocate to me.

I normally don't argue for any particular side. I simply think that attacking the conspiracy is not a good way to disprove the FE theory.

What do you think is a good way?

What do you think is a good way?

I have seen several very good arguments against the FE, none of them involving the conspiracy.
 While they are not in themselves 'proof' against the FE, they are convincing enough for me to be comfortable explaining to someone why I believe Earth to be round.

(Sorry Riefnu, I can split these posts into their own topic if you want)

Here, you two both seem to be saying I can't prove the conspiracy to be false because it simply can't be done. It's like disproving the existence of God. Is that correct?

Basically.

I'll assume the triangles ARE similar. Therefore, the angles MUST be equal. But I measured them, and they aren't. Therefore, the triangles cannot be equal.

True, but this is reversed in the FE scenario. The FE version goes:

I assume the angles are equal, therefore the triangles are similar.
Now the only way to prove that the triangles are not similar is to prove that the angles are not equal.
I'm not saying it's a logical fallacy to try and prove they aren't similar, I'm saying it can't be done.

I'll assume the earth is FLAT. Therefore there MUST be a conspiracy. But I checked and there wasn't. Therefore the earth cannot be flat.

This is what I mean right here. How are you supposed to check? What methods do you propose for deciding if two triangles are similar, without measuring their angles (or checking the ratios of the length of two of their sides, which requires mesurement also)?

But it's not fair, is it? You can't prove that hamsters DON'T rule the earth (why do I keep using that example?), yet you accept it as true that they don't, and you feel, rightly, that this is reasonable.

I don't believe hamsters rule the earth because I have no line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion.

It's really pretty difficult/impossible to PROVE anything, yet we'll still believe it. So I don't need to prove anything, really. I just need to show how much more reasonable a round earth is. I can do this by proving how unreasonable a FE is. I think I should be able to do this by proving how unreasonable the conspiracy is.

You're right that you only need to prove which theory is more reasonable, but I don't agree that you can do that by proving how logical/illogical the conspiracy is. The conspiracy is simply a consequence of the FE theory.

So yeah, in conclusion, I just want to demonstrate how unreasonable the FE theory is. I can't really prove anything, if you're going to be as strict as you are.

Then demonstrate it. Although remember that doing so will not disprove the flat earth theory. To do that you need an observable phenomena that should not happen according to the FE theory.

Quote from: "MaDeR"

RE model: Balls, balls, everythere balls. We're just on one of them.
FE model: Flat Earth. One and only. Center of universe.

So? You're saying that Earth is special.

Where I said that? Earth is one of many, many, many balls. How many times I must repeat that?

Even RE's will agree with that; after all, we're the only planet we know of that supports life.

But RE cosmology allow possibility to exists such life, and even intelligence, on some other balls in universe.

In Fe cosmology can be one and only Flat Earth.

Where I said that? Earth is one of many, many, many balls. How many times I must repeat that?

I think he meant "So? You're saying Earth is special in the FE universe."

EnragedPenguin, I am under the notion that if this cannot be understood by now, then it never will be.  Perhaps you should simply close this thread.

I don't believe hamsters rule the earth because I have no line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion.

What line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the earth is flat? Personally I belive hampsters rule the Earth we know this because there is a conspirisy hiding the fact; and it's one that's good enough for you not to have realised that it's there.

I call this Hampster Earth theory (HE); I propose that we now debate it alongside FE and RE, as it has as much evidence behind it as FE

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

I don't believe hamsters rule the earth because I have no line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion.

What line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the earth is flat? Personally I belive hampsters rule the Earth we know this because there is a conspirisy hiding the fact; and it's one that's good enough for you not to have realised that it's there.

I call this Hampster Earth theory (HE); I propose that we now debate it alongside FE and RE, as it has as much evidence behind it as FE

We could go on for days amassing the entire FE reasoning.  Or, you could read many posts here  :wink:

Quote from: "VJ"

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

I don't believe hamsters rule the earth because I have no line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion.

What line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the earth is flat? Personally I belive hampsters rule the Earth we know this because there is a conspirisy hiding the fact; and it's one that's good enough for you not to have realised that it's there.

I call this Hampster Earth theory (HE); I propose that we now debate it alongside FE and RE, as it has as much evidence behind it as FE

We could go on for days amassing the entire FE reasoning.  Or, you could read many posts here  :wink:

I've read many of the posts here, including this entire thread; however all evidence seems to boil down to two points. 1)it looks flat 2)There's a global conspirisy to make people believe it's round.

Using scientific method, point 1 is eaisly falsified; that leaves us with point 2. which is exatly the same amount of evidence that my Hampster Earth theory has behind it.

True, but this is reversed in the FE scenario. The FE version goes:

I assume the angles are equal, therefore the triangles are similar.
Now the only way to prove that the triangles are not similar is to prove that the angles are not equal.
I'm not saying it's a logical fallacy to try and prove they aren't similar, I'm saying it can't be done.

Ahh. I think I see what you're saying.

I assume the earth is flat, therefore there must be a conspiracy.

I assume the angles are equal, therefore the triangles must be similar.

The similarity of the triangles, like the conspiracy, can only be disproved in one way. With it's premise: the angles/fe theory. Good point.

What methods do you propose for deciding if two triangles are similar, without measuring their angles (or checking the ratios of the length of two of their sides, which requires mesurement also)?

Ahh, see, you have just admitted that there is another way to to disprove the similarity, without even discussing the angles. I say that we could do this with the conspiracy too. I could disprove it in some other way.

Now, of course, your point that there's really nothing to measure, and that's fair enough. But if I have two triangles with obviously disproportionate sides, then all I have to do is say: look at the sides! They're obviously out of proportion. Your theory is obviously wrong.

So yeah. Look at this conspiracy! It makes no sense, it would have to be dating back far too long, it has no motive, and there's no evidence whatsoever of it! Isn't that enough! It makes as much sense as the hamsters.

I don't believe hamsters rule the earth because I have no line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion.

Obviously, then, the conspiracy is working exceptionally well.

Now, assume that hamsters do rule the earth. Therefore there is obviously a conspiracy. Please prove there isn't.

See? It's unreasonable. Yet it's what FEers do.

You're right that you only need to prove which theory is more reasonable, but I don't agree that you can do that by proving how logical/illogical the conspiracy is. The conspiracy is simply a consequence of the FE theory.

The more illogical the consequence, the more illogical the theory. If I develop a theory that has a completely illogical consequence, the theory is that much more illogical. If my triangles' sides are obviously out of proportion, it's illogical to assume they are, and it's illogical to assume the triangles are similar.

Additionally, now you seem to be saying I can prove the conspiracy illogical, while before you were saying I couldn't (without first tackling the FE theory).

EnragedPenguin, I am under the notion that if this cannot be understood by now, then it never will be. Perhaps you should simply close this thread.

Mephisto, I am under the impression that if RE theory cannot be accepted by now, then it never will be. Perhaps you should simply give up your theory.

We could go on for days amassing the entire FE reasoning. Or, you could read many posts here

Or you could post in the "reasons for belief" thread. One of the reasons people have a hard time grasping your theory is because we don't get why you believe it, and come up with explanations for it and against RE. Just doens't make any sense to us.

The only reasoning I've seen is "it looks that way from up close", and "someone wrote a convincing book on it". You know, there have also been very convincing books on atronomy, for a very long time. Much longer! and many more... and making much more sense. And the webpages they're hosted on don't talk about how illogical they are... right there!

As for looking through the threads, there really isn't anything that explains your complete stubbornness to the contrary. I mean, it's one thing to accept that both are possible, but I've seen many posts by FEers that say they "know".

?

Hi, this was off topic for the other thread, but on topic for this one, so I replied to it in this one.

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

I mean tell me something that exists that defies the laws of logic. Really.

Well, we can start with religion for one.
Most religious doctines is based on faith.  Faith by it's very nature is illogical.

The tradition of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Love, Suicide bombers.  Again, by definition any thing that relies on emotion or belief is not logical.

First of all, you're using "illogical" in the sense of "it was not discovered by logic". That's not what I said. I said something that defies logic. Also, it was kind of an old point, I'm not so much insisting that something, like FE, that defies logic CAN'T be real, more that it's unreasonable to believe it if it does defy logic.

Then, you did something stupid. You gave a bunch of examples of things that didn't exist that defied logic, proving my point. So yeah. Nice.

First of all "absurd" and not "Making Sense"  are subjective.  To me the war in Iraq does not make sense.  None of the stated goal seem achievable fro various reasons, and the supposed "hidden one" lower oil costs, does not seem to offest the billions spent to keep the war going.

Does that mean that the war does not exist?  No, it means that to some group, it does make sense.  I just don't share the same knowlege and philosophy.

Right, but this conspiracy, not having motives, evidence, or logic, makes no sense on a much larger scale. It makes no sense in a more objective sense. It's completely and utterly nonsensical.

Quote from: "me"

Well, you would have to prove that the conspiracy does not exist, and that without the conspiracy the earth can not be flat.

But proving that the conspiracy is not logical or practical does not prove it does not exist, just that it is not rational.

You argument that if it is not rational it does not exist is the logical flaw. Logic is not required to prove existance.  Therefore your argument does not exist, because it is not logical.

Well, yeah, my argument doens't physically exist, but the abstract "argument" that I'm saying exists. Just like the "idea" of a "conspiracy" exists, but it doesn't in reality, because it doesn't make any fucking sense and there's no evidence for it.

And again, I've moved away from saying it doesn't exist because it's illogical. Now I'm just saying that since the conspiracy is illogical, it makes the entire  theory that much more illogical. You don't believe in Santa, not because he CAN'T exist, but because it's completely illogical that he does, and in that respect, you're rational enough to realize this. FEers, however, cannot do the same about a FE.

Ahh, see, you have just admitted that there is another way to to disprove the similarity, without even discussing the angles. I say that we could do this with the conspiracy too. I could disprove it in some other way.

Measuring the angles and checking the ratios is pretty much the same thing. The ratios are the same because the angles are the same (or vice versa, I suppose.) If I assume the angles are equal, I am assuming the ratios are equal.
The ratios are part of the original assumption.

I assume the angles and ratios are even, therefore the triangle is similar.

Now, of course, your point that there's really nothing to measure, and that's fair enough. But if I have two triangles with obviously disproportionate sides, then all I have to do is say: look at the sides! They're obviously out of proportion. Your theory is obviously wrong.

And if you have two triangles with obviously disproportionate angles, then all you have to do is say: Look at the angles! They're obviously out of proportion. So?
To prove the sides are different, you have to prove the angles are different, or vice versa (both happen at the same time.)

So yeah. Look at this conspiracy! It makes no sense, it would have to be dating back far too long, it has no motive, and there's no evidence whatsoever of it! Isn't that enough! It makes as much sense as the hamsters.

It doesn't make sense only because we don't know what the motive is. And no, there is no evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It makes as much sense as there being a conspiracy if hamsters rule the world, but not as little as hamsters ruling the world.

Now, assume that hamsters do rule the earth. Therefore there is obviously a conspiracy. Please prove there isn't.

Like I've been telling you all through this thread, you can't. I cannot prove that there is no conspiracy covering up the fact that hamsters rule the Earth, without first proving that hamsters don't rule the Earth.

Unlike the hamster theory, FE theory is slightly (very slightly) more scientific, in that there are ways to prove it wrong. If certain things happen that can't happen if Earth is flat, the theory is disproved.
There are no such tests for the hamster theory.

The more illogical the consequence, the more illogical the theory. If I develop a theory that has a completely illogical consequence, the theory is that much more illogical. If my triangles' sides are obviously out of proportion, it's illogical to assume they are, and it's illogical to assume the triangles are similar.

But if you've proved the triangles sides are out of proportion, you didn't just prove similarity is illogical, you've proved they aren't similar. This should hopefully answer your next point. V V V

Additionally, now you seem to be saying I can prove the conspiracy illogical, while before you were saying I couldn't (without first tackling the FE theory).

Then, you did something stupid. You gave a bunch of examples of things that didn't exist that defied logic, proving my point. So yeah. Nice.

Are you saying that "The tradition of Santa Claus" does not exist?

It's illogical to spread the idea of Santa, but people do it to their children every year.

Now since that's not the argument you are posing anymore...

You still are tieing the Conspiracy to the Flat earth, and saying that The Flat earth could not exist without the conspiracy.  I'm arguing that the Flat Earth is not dependent on a world government conspiracy.

For example..and this is just a wild idea, not anyone's theory (that I know of).

Suppose that on the opposite side of the RISC live a race of beings that for convenience I will call the Morlocks.

The morlock living on the opposite side are exposed directly to the dark energy that is pushing the disk through space.  This has increased the amount of mutation in their race.  The has cause two notable differences from the humans like you and I.  Due to the higher mutation rate, they have evolved faster than us, but also due to the high mutation rate, their population is much smaller.

They are effectively more advance tech wise, and have been using their advanced technology to delude the top siders into believing the world is spherical.  They do this because with their lower population they fear being discovered by us.  And considering our record with meeting new peoples, can you blame them?

They do not want to kill us off, as they have learned to value life very highly, and they do not want to interact with us, because they can see that we do not.
______________

Sure it's just fantasy, but it shows one way that the conspiracy theory could be wrong, and the world still flat.

The point being, the just tearing apart one idea does not collapse the foundation of the concept.