Screw Up

Q: "If you don't even have a possible motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

....waaaaait a minute lol.

That can also work as a counter argument because you can say

[...] if the earth is in fact round, then the governments must be telling the truth when they say it is.

Note the small differences.

There is no reason to believe that the government is lying to begin with.
So you can't say the motive for their creating a conspiracy is that you're right no matter what (even if you're wrong) and when the government tells you you're wrong, then you say they're lying. That's just crazy.

Quote

Q: "If you don't even have a possible motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

....waaaaait a minute lol.

That can also work as a counter argument because you can say

Quote

[...] if the earth is in fact round, then the governments must be telling the truth when they say it is.

Of course you can, that's why the conspiracy is useless as a means of proving or disproving the FE theory.

Yeah, the idea of that answer wasn't to PROVE anything, it was just an answer as to why we use the conspiracy idea. Simple logic here, my friend.

~D-Draw

but the point is that there isn't a conspiracy so no one can use that as an excuse for something not existing because theres no valid proof there is one

but the point is that there isn't a conspiracy so no one can use that as an excuse for something not existing because theres no valid proof there is one

There is a valid proof:

1)  If the Earth is flat, and people who ought to know better say that it's round, those people must be lying.
2)  The Earth is flat.
3)  People who ought to know better say that it's round.
4) Therefore, those people are lying.

Again the conspiracy is not used as evidence of the flatness of the Earth; it's a logical implication if it is flat.

A proof does not contain any "if". A statement that starts off a questionable element (if) is not a proof.

An answer that is based on an assumtion is invalid.

It would be way too easy if it was.

- Hey, my friend samantha told me you had sex togheter when I was away. Did you?

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

=

- Honey, If I was in fact faithful to you, then samantha must be lying when she says I wasn't.

In both cases, the question is not ansewred. The answer provided contains no useful information, as it does not address the subject of the question.

Again the conspiracy is not used as evidence of the flatness

Incorrect. If the conspiracy was NOT used to justify flat earth, then the NASA pictures are legit, and flat earth doesn't stand.

A proof does not contain any "if". A statement that starts off a questionable element (if) is not a proof.

Numerous mathmatical proofs make assumptions and have an 'if...then' structure.  Take this simple proof:
If f(x) = f(y) then x=y.
You make the assumption that f(x) = f(y).  If this is true, then x must equal y.
This one still gives me nightmares:
If S is a linearly independent set of vectors in a finite-dimensional vector
space V, then there is a basis T for V, which contains S.

that is actually a very good point lol.

Ok, what I found was that math proof is logical and not empirical.

Articles on Math Proof

Quote

Q: "If you don't even have a possible motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

....waaaaait a minute lol.

That can also work as a counter argument because you can say

Yeah, like Diego and GeoGuy said, that isn't an argument for Earths flatness, just an explanation for why FErs say there is a conspiracy.

but its so stupid, it doesnt mean anything and isnt valid in anyway what so ever

Yes it is, it means that if Earth is flat there is a conspiracy to cover it up, if Earth is not flat there is no conspiracy to cover it up. The FAQ is not there to prove the FE theory, it is there to answer Frequently Asked Questions.

K fine let's talk outside FAQ. There is no proof there is a conspiracy, no plausible motive, so that should make it every time a FE'er says something is part of the conspiracy invalid because the conspiracy concept itself it stupid lol.

K fine let's talk outside FAQ. There is no proof there is a conspiracy,

Of course there isn't, but it's obvious that if Earth is flat there is one.


 

no plausible motive,

You mean "No known plausible motive", that doesn't mean there isn't one.

so that should make it every time a FE'er says something is part of the conspiracy invalid because the conspiracy concept itself it stupid lol.

Not really.

You're all a bunch of idiots.

Why do you think that?

A proof does not contain any "if". A statement that starts off a questionable element (if) is not a proof.

An answer that is based on an assumtion is invalid.

It would be way too easy if it was.

- Hey, my friend samantha told me you had sex togheter when I was away. Did you?

Quote

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

=

- Honey, If I was in fact faithful to you, then samantha must be lying when she says I wasn't.

In both cases, the question is not ansewred. The answer provided contains no useful information, as it does not address the subject of the question.

Quote

Again the conspiracy is not used as evidence of the flatness

Incorrect. If the conspiracy was NOT used to justify flat earth, then the NASA pictures are legit, and flat earth doesn't stand.

The argument Erasmus gave is completely valid.

Are you debating the validity of the argument?

The argument Erasmus gave is completely valid

Please demonstrate how it is valid

Why do you think that?

The fact is, If Rossk #5!! is correct, then you must be idiots.

Please demonstrate how it is valid

I get the impression that either you have not done any schoolwork in elementary logic, or you have forgotten it.

Some important things to note:

1)  Valid arguments very often contain the word "if".  A classical example might be, "If X is a man, then X is mortal.  Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal."  Any time you have a statement "If P, then Q," alongside the statement "P", and you conclude "Q", you are doing what is called affirming the antecedent, or applying modus ponens.

2)  An argument is called valid if any time the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

In part 1 of my argument, I present a statement in the form, "If P and Q, then R."  I then assume P; Q is not controversial; I thus conclude R.

Similarly, the response, "If I was faithful to you, then Samantha was lying," is a true statement.

I would like to reiterate my statement that the conspiracy is entailled by the flatness of the Earth but is nowhere used as evidence for the flatness.

it's not used as evidence for the flatness, it's just that if someone has proof its not or something then someone else will say it doesnt count becuase it is part of the conspiracy

it's not used as evidence for the flatness, it's just that if someone has proof its not or something then someone else will say it doesnt count becuase it is part of the conspiracy

Right.... but so what?  The same sort of thing can happen in conventional science, but with the conspiracy replaced by some natural phenomenon that conveniently explains counterevidence to a theory.

You are speaking out of context erasmus.

if Earth is flat there is a conspiracy

"If X is a man, then X is mortal.

Tell me, how does the 2nd statment prove or help determine that X is a man?

Similarly, the response, "If I was faithful to you, then Samantha was lying," is a true statement.

Man, cheat on your girl, then use that statment and tell me how it goes.

You are speaking out of context erasmus.

Quote

if Earth is flat there is a conspiracy

Quote

"If X is a man, then X is mortal.

Tell me, how does the 2nd statment prove or help determine that X is a man?

Quote

Similarly, the response, "If I was faithful to you, then Samantha was lying," is a true statement.

Man, cheat on your girl, then use that statment and tell me how it goes.

I can see the source of your confusion and I have pointed it out several times: you think that the point of the argument is to show that the Earth is round (i.e. you think that the point of the statement to the girlfriend is to prove that I did not cheat on her); this is not the case.

The point is actually to prove that in a certain possible universe (one in which the Earth is flat), there is a conspiracy (i.e., that in a certain possible universe (one in which I did not sleep with Samantha), that Samantha is lying).

Once you realize that it will become clear that my explanations have been completely within context.

Of course you can, that's why the conspiracy is useless as a means of proving or disproving the FE theory.

But... if you prove there is no conspiracy, (which you can't without actually going to antarctica,) than the Earth cannot be flat.

1) In order for the Earth to be flat, a conspiracy must exist.
2) There is no conspiracy.
Therefore
3) The Earth is not flat.

But... if you prove there is no conspiracy, (which you can't without actually going to antarctica,) than the Earth cannot be flat.

1) In order for the Earth to be flat, a conspiracy must exist.
2) There is no conspiracy.
Therefore
3) The Earth is not flat.

True.  At least, the argument is valid... FEers obviously will point out that (2) has not been established.

Quote from: "link222"

but the point is that there isn't a conspiracy so no one can use that as an excuse for something not existing because theres no valid proof there is one

There is a valid proof:

1)  If the Earth is flat, and people who ought to know better say that it's round, those people must be lying.
2)  The Earth is flat.
3)  People who ought to know better say that it's round.
4) Therefore, those people are lying.

Again the conspiracy is not used as evidence of the flatness of the Earth; it's a logical implication if it is flat.

But that logic only works from the perspective of someone who accepts point 2), which is unsupported by evidence.  As insinuated by the original poster, I could do this:

1)  If the Earth is round, and people who ought to know better say that it's flat, those people must be lying.
2)  The Earth is round.
3)  People who ought to know better say that it's flat.
4) Therefore, those people are lying.

That logic doesn't work for you, because you don't accept my version of 2).  In the same way that your version doesn't work for me.

If a consensus can't be reached on that point, both arguments are illogical  and flawed, and we must default to actual evidence.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "link222"

but the point is that there isn't a conspiracy so no one can use that as an excuse for something not existing because theres no valid proof there is one

There is a valid proof:

1)  If the Earth is flat, and people who ought to know better say that it's round, those people must be lying.
2)  The Earth is flat.
3)  People who ought to know better say that it's round.
4) Therefore, those people are lying.

Again the conspiracy is not used as evidence of the flatness of the Earth; it's a logical implication if it is flat.

But that logic only works from the perspective of someone who accepts point 2), which is unsupported by evidence.  As insinuated by the original poster, I could do this:

1)  If the Earth is round, and people who ought to know better say that it's flat, those people must be lying.
2)  The Earth is round.
3)  People who ought to know better say that it's flat.
4) Therefore, those people are lying.

That logic doesn't work for you, because you don't accept my version of 2).  In the same way that your version doesn't work for me.

If a consensus can't be reached on that point, both arguments are illogical  and flawed, and we must default to actual evidence.

It is not illogical.  Perhaps you too have either not taken a logic course or have forgotten about it.  It is a simple logical argument whereas if the Earth is infact flat then there is a conspiracy promoting RE information.

The argument Erasmus gave is perfectly sound, valid, and contains no logical fallacies(post hoc, ad hominem for you forgetful people).

The only thing that keeps his argument from being sound is the issue of RE / FE being theories and non-proven.  This is similar for scientific theories.

And for those of you who have not taken logic or forgotten:

Soundness is the quality an argument gets when:  the argument is valid, the argument contains no logical fallacies (ad hominem, post hoc, etc), and the premise is true.

The argument Erasmus gave is perfectly sound, valid, and contains no logical fallacies(post hoc, ad hominem for you forgetful people).

...

Soundness is the quality an argument gets when:  the argument is valid, the argument contains no logical fallacies (ad hominem, post hoc, etc), and the premise is true.

Well, the soundness of the argument is not guaranteed since it is contentious whether the premise (that the Earth is flat) is true.

Otherwise, yes, I am in agreement :)

I think it's amazing that I, being a Round Earther, agree with the Flat Earthers so much more often!