I am a pilot and I want to prove you all wrong

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?

I am not. What gave you this idea?

that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?

Possibly.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?

I am not. What gave you this idea?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?

Possibly.

I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.

He cant be a pilot as he would have hit the ice wall and would not be able to post this post.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:05:40 AM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?

I am not. What gave you this idea?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?

Possibly.

I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.

Would you care to elaborate on why they are contradictory?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:54:19 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:05:40 AM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?

I am not. What gave you this idea?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?

Possibly.

I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.

Would you care to elaborate on why they are contradictory?

Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)

If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.

If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.

It's a futile endeavor to try to reason with irushwithscvs, he's clearly one of two things;

1) A very amusing troll
2) Deluded beyond all reason

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best:

... the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best:

Quote

... the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.

My word, that is a wonderful quote

I am literally speechless as to how cool that quote is. I applaud you Burt!

Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)

If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.

If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.

That did not explain why my answers are contradictory.

Quote from: spaghetti on July 06, 2012, 04:45:04 PM

Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)

If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.

If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.

That did not explain why my answers are contradictory.

If a) perception is absolute, then b) there is no objective shape of the earth. but if you agreed with c) that their is a possibilty that things have an objective quality apart from perception, then a) is untrue. therefore just because something appears a certain way does not mean that in actual fact it is that way.

If a) perception is absolute, then b) there is no objective shape of the earth. but if you agreed with c) that their is a possibilty that things have an objective quality apart from perception, then a) is untrue. therefore just because something appears a certain way does not mean that in actual fact it is that way.

All I am seeing is posters explaining what answers would be contradictory, not why my specific answers are in conflict. I have yet to see someone support the claim that my answers were incompatible with one another.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:54:19 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:05:40 AM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?

I am not. What gave you this idea?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?

Possibly.

I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.

Would you care to elaborate on why they are contradictory?

If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.

The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.

Therein the contradiction lies.

If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.

The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.

Therein the contradiction lies.

This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim.

Quote from: mathsman on July 07, 2012, 04:39:21 PM

If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.

The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.

Therein the contradiction lies.

This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim.

Does the earth have an true nature of itself? Yes or no?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on July 07, 2012, 12:23:56 AM

Quote from: spaghetti on July 06, 2012, 04:45:04 PM

Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)

If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.

If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.

That did not explain why my answers are contradictory.

If a) perception is absolute, then b) there is no objective shape of the earth. but if you agreed with c) that their is a possibilty that things have an objective quality apart from perception, then a) is untrue. therefore just because something appears a certain way does not mean that in actual fact it is that way.

Hopefully your explanation will make more sense to him then mine did. I am good with numbers and concepts, not words and explanations

"This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim."

you said (a)  "the earth looks flat therefore it is"

which has two pressupositions

1) that perception determines truth
2)the earth "is" flat

You also  also answered

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?

I am not. What gave you this idea?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 02:26:27 AM

that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?

Possibly.

We’ll denote the first answer B and the second one C

Let me explain this to you very slowly:

For now let’s put aside whether the earth is flat or round.

(X)If you want (a) to be a valid argument at all, you have to disagree with both B and C, because of presupposition (1), no exceptions, unless you are looking for an escape hatch.

(Y)if you say “possibly” then you have to admit that (a) is false, because of presupposition (1); certainty does not stem from “maybe”.

[BTW; this is where you contradicted yourself you can't say both a and C]

(Z)If you say that you agree with (B) and (C) then the earth has an objective shape regardless of perception. So therefore (a) is an invalid inference

So bringing back in the flat earth theory:

 if (X)then it does not matter what shape the earth is, it only seems to be that way to an observer, and so there is no point in you believing either that the earth is round or flat.

If (Y) then you need evidence to back up your statement (conspiracy time).

If (Z), (a) is not proof.

Therefore saying this “the earth looks flat therefore it is” just makes you look naive.


[edited] because I made slip

Your extremely long post did nothing but show that my answers are, in fact, not contradictory. Thank you for clearing that up and showing that false claims are not tolerated here.

Yeah it seems I conclusively showed you that your answers indisputably true. Thanks for showing me the way.

It looks flat, therefore it is; I will sleep better tonight

Quote from: mathsman on July 07, 2012, 04:39:21 PM

If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.

The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.

Therein the contradiction lies.

This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim.

Irushwithscvs, you're clear proof of the old adage: It's no use knocking when there's nobody at home.

So far everyone seems to agree that rushy contradicted himself. To make this much shorter, then lets see if anyone besides rushy thinks he did not contradict himself

I don't think Rushy contradicted himself.  I don't understand why you people are out to get him.  He has been more than generous in sharing his knowledge and opinions.  Just because you have other opinions, you try to persecute him.  Shame on you.

That is the problem Jroa, you don't think...

Rushy is trying desperately to stay afloat on a sinking ship. You made the mistake rushy, you put the hole in the boat now own up to it and move on. No one likes you less for making a contradiction statement.

You people are so hell bent on finding the slightest thing that you can call wrong that you completely ignore everything that you can not find fault in.

No one can explain why I contradicted myself because I did not contradict myself. Go ahead, read their posts. They all talk about "Well, if you had answered this way, then it would be contradictory."

They talk about what answers would have conflicted, not that my answers are conflicting. Its an irrelevant derailment of the thread because the original argument was destroyed. Now they're all upset that they have been bested and can't own up to it. At least I have the common courtesy of noting my mistakes when such mistakes exist.

No one can explain why I contradicted myself because I did not contradict myself. Go ahead, read their posts. They all talk about "Well, if you had answered this way, then it would be contradictory."

They talk about what answers would have conflicted, not that my answers are conflicting. Its an irrelevant derailment of the thread because the original argument was destroyed. Now they're all upset that they have been bested and can't own up to it. At least I have the common courtesy of noting my mistakes when such mistakes exist.

Come on rushy  , you did say those things, we had a blast.  I can make more effort and go back and edit my post so it has direct quotes from you, then you can challenge it properly.


[Edit]: Punctuation fail.

What the hell happened to this thread? And where is Voyaging?

Can someone summarise, quote or link? This thread has been off topic so long I can't find where the last high-content post was made.

Meh, never mind. It's not necessary. I just came to the last page or two to see if there was any of this proof from the person who is probably 15 or 16 years old claimed to have the capability of getting.

Sadly, there never is. They make the post, get all defensive when we ask how it can be so many pilots and astronauts etc turn up here (usually with the literacy of a disinterested urine-soaked tramp) and then they leave before they get to 10 posts.

Sadly, there never is. They make the post, get all defensive when we ask how it can be so many pilots and astronauts etc turn up here (usually with the literacy of a disinterested urine-soaked tramp) and then they leave before they get to 10 posts.

Back for insults?

Nice move, Therk.