"FE'ISM" DOES NOT WORK

Going by your edit should I assume that your original statement was actually false and that I won that argument?  Another example of a FEer beating a REer in debate.  Of course if I didn't win - why did you change that statement if it is correct?



Now you can say that what I said was pointless as much as you like but in fact the point I was trying to make was that regardless of if your logic is actually correct or not - it doesn't take into account the fact that REers make mistakes like everybody else and it's entirely possible - indeed it's happened many times - that a REer will try to argue a reason for why the Earth is round that is false.

Your revised statement that:

Below I am going to demonstrate why an FE’er cannot win an argument with an RE’er with regards to the shape of the earth (edit dedicated to my good pal thebeast) using their current methods of debate.

is only true if the REers know what they're talking about and in practice we've seen many examples of people arguing that the Earth is round but having no idea what they're talking about.  They confuse Newtonian physics with special relativity, they think that gravity is caused by electromagnetism, they think that the theory that the Earth is round was based on gravity, they think that light can curve for reasons other than gravity.  The Earth may indeed be round (theoretically) but even if it is, we've seen in practice that REers do make mistakes and can be beaten in arguments about the shape of the Earth.

You're just a confused fellow beast. I edited my post because it was humorous to see how by adding a few words everything that you said would just go to waste; it was funny. I can take it out if you wish. I don't really care since with or without that edit everyone else except you undertands what I'm talking about. You won no argument, but you can tell yourself that you did if it makes you feel better; I actually have not seen you winning an argument since I came onto this forum. Besides, what you posted was simply ridiculous and had nothing to do with what I was saying. Just look at my conclusions and notice that they have nothing to do with what you talked about. The only thing that you proved is that you have a hard time understanding the substance, and therefore focus on the form. Good job.  

DiegoDraw, this thread wasn't started with the intention of convincing FE'ers that the earth is round. I don't want, nor need, to prove anything to you, and therefore I will not look for evidence. I know it exists, if you want to check, go ahead. It's hypocritical to ask for evidence when you yourself are unable to provide any for your claims. It's obvious by now that the FE'ers on this website cannot accept that they are wrong even when confronted with all the evidence they need in order to believe that the earth is round. As a result I used a different angle and simply commented on the flawed approach used by FE'ers in debates about the shape of the earth, proving their arguments invalid. Thus I built a sort of "guide" for RE'ers who come onto this website knowing that FE'ers are wrong to begin with, but unable to figure out why at first glance. My thread helps them understand why you don't have a point. Those who have been on this website long enough understand perfectly well what I mean. Also, it's amazing how you criticize my source, wikipedia, when most of your fellows make references to it. I've no idea how using wikipedia diminishes the value of my post. Oh and logical fallacies do NOT work "in a round about way" - use of logical fallacies result in loss of an argument i.e. they just don't work (read what they mean before writing junk). Furthermore, a theory is not "a belief with scientific evidence that isn't proven yet". Even your friend Erasmus was proved wrong on this one.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Oh... that's from wikipedia. You can also check other sources if you're not fine with this one, but "scientific evidence" is by definition proved. That's why it's scientific. Overall conclusion: you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The rest of your attempts to take parts of my argument, twist it and turn it and draw conclusions that are irrelevant, I do not care about. I will simply update this thread so that others can read it.
Cheers.

We must mean different things when we say "winning arguments" because I'm pretty sure you were wrong when you said that "the round Earth model is based on gravity".  I'm pretty sure it's been proven by Einstein that you can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light.  I'm absolutely certain that electromagnetism is a different force to gravity.  I also know that the statement that you are trying to prove with your logic is a false statement no matter how accurate your logic is.  When you write a post that begins with a paragraph making a statement that you're going to prove I think it is completely justifiably to attack that statement without worrying about the argument that follows.  While I think your logic is also wrong - it is obvious that your statement:

"Below I am going to demonstrate why an FE’er cannot win an argument with an RE’er with regards to the shape of the earth (edit dedicated to my good pal thebeast) using their current methods of debate."

Is a false statement because it relies on the REers being perfect and they are not.  I don't really see how you can debate this.

It's easy to make comments like "The only thing that you proved is that you have a hard time understanding the substance, and therefore focus on the form." but you haven't made any attempt to explain why it is that my criticism of your statement being false is not legitimate.  You say it's got nothing to do with what you're talking about but surely you are trying to prove that your statement is correct and surely my argument shows that you missed out a crucial aspect of such an argument.

We must mean different things when we say "winning arguments" because I'm pretty sure you were wrong when you said that "the round Earth model is based on gravity".  I'm pretty sure it's been proven by Einstein that you can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light.  I'm absolutely certain that electromagnetism is a different force to gravity.  I also know that the statement that you are trying to prove with your logic is a false statement no matter how accurate your logic is.  When you write a post that begins with a paragraph making a statement that you're going to prove I think it is completely justifiably to attack that statement without worrying about the argument that follows.  While I think your logic is also wrong - it is obvious that your statement:

"Below I am going to demonstrate why an FE’er cannot win an argument with an RE’er with regards to the shape of the earth (edit dedicated to my good pal thebeast) using their current methods of debate."

Is a false statement because it relies on the REers being perfect and they are not.  I don't really see how you can debate this.

It's easy to make comments like "The only thing that you proved is that you have a hard time understanding the substance, and therefore focus on the form." but you haven't made any attempt to explain why it is that my criticism of your statement being false is not legitimate.  You say it's got nothing to do with what you're talking about but surely you are trying to prove that your statement is correct and surely my argument shows that you missed out a crucial aspect of such an argument.

What you posted was simply ridiculous and had nothing to do with what I posted. Just look at my conclusions and notice that they have nothing to do with what you talked about. The only thing that you proved is that you have a hard time understanding the substance, and therefore focus on the form. Good job.  
Common sense mate... common sense.

I'm on to you Bibicul. Good job stringing them along this far, but you might as well just come out and tell them what your real point is.

I told you my real point in the first post.

Conclusions:

There are 2 conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis presented above:
1) Since FE’ers use logical falacies (in the form of negative proofs) in their arguments, and since they believe that the burden of proof lies with RE’ers, their arguments automatically fail. In other words, nobody needs to disprove anything in the FE “theory” since it hasn’t even been proved.
2) The only way that the FE “theory” can become a theory is if FE’ers find other ways to argue, for example by providing evidence for their claims (rather than saying “there is a government conspiracy because there is no proof that there isn’t a government cospiracy”).

this thread wasn't started with the intention of convincing FE'ers that the earth is round. I don't want, nor need, to prove anything to you, and therefore I will not look for evidence. I know it exists, if you want to check, go ahead.

Let's stop playing games.

Does your post actually have a point?

That part of your post I quoted sort of clued me in, since it's using the exact same argument you're accusing the FEs of using.

This is getting tiring. Read mate, read.

Thus I built a sort of "guide" for RE'ers who come onto this website knowing that FE'ers are wrong to begin with, but unable to figure out why at first glance. My thread helps them understand why you don't have a point.

I'm not attacking your conclusions.  They may or may not be true.  I'm not questioning that.  What I'm saying is that the statement that you set out to prove - the statement that FEers cannot win arguments against REers - is false.  It has been proven false by observation - we've seen FEers beat REers in arguments pertaining to the shape of the Earth.  The reason we've seen this happen is because most people who feel a need to argue that the Earth actually is round don't understand the science behind what they're arguing.  It's actually no reflection on the shape of the Earth.


Of course your first conclusion is right but also meaningless.

Nobody needs to prove or disprove that the Earth is round or flat.  What people decide through debate doesn't actually mean that they're correct or incorrect.  The shape of the Earth really has nothing to do with what we can debate.  From my time on this forum I have never seen a FEer try to put forward a genuine argument of why the Earth is flat - we just pick holes in the arguments of people who say we're wrong.

Your second conclusion is wrong.  Probably because you don't understand what the word "theory" means.  Obviously "theory" has a few different definitions and while we probably can't use the word under some of the definitions it can still clearly be used using the others.

Here is a link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

and here are some relevant definitions:

The relevant dictionary.com definitions
"2.   a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

6.   contemplation or speculation.
7.   guess or conjecture."

American Heritage Dictionary

"4. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

6.  An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary

"2. Abstract reasoning; speculation."


That is the definition of the word used in the context of "FE theory".

As I'm sure you know, abstract reasoning and speculation do not require evidence to back them up.  If you had evidence it wouldn't be speculation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speculation

"1.   the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2.   a single instance or process of consideration.
3.   a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4.   conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts."

Whatever your "real" point is, bibicul, I know it can't be the one in your original post about "negative proof." Because your argument for that is absolutely ridiculous.
I am extremely dense, so if you are trying to make a point, you're going to have to explain it to me.

beast,

The FE "theory" is claimed (by Erasmus, the voice of reason for FE'ers) to be a scienfitic theory. If you wish, I can paste the thread in which he states this explicitly - that, I will do if you insist, although I think you participated in that discussion with at least one post. Also, here is what www.dictionary.com says about a (scientific) theory:

A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Here is what www.wikipedia.com says about a scientific theory (by the way, when you said I "didn't understand" what a theory meant you were actually referring directly to what wikipedia put forth; and no offense, but you are not wikipedia):

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Now, if you don't agree that the FE "theory" is scientific, take it out with Erasmus; if you convince him that it's not scientific, then you lose the argument in which he claimed it was. Either way, it's a win-win for me.

If, instead, you are just here to argue and you don't believe that the earth is flat (in which case you're a liar, because you said you were a flat-earther) then you should specify that ALL you want to do is find holes in the RE theory, not prove the FE one correct. In that case, I can ignore you since I'm not interested in finding holes in the RE theory, but rather show why the FE "theory" is nothing more than a joke.




Penguin,

Being dense is a good trait, congratulations if you are; saying it about yourself just means you are full of it, and that's not something to be proud of. Like I said before, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just a tip though - a logical fallacy was used tonight by a FE'er in a very recent thread related to the shape of the earth. I replied to it. If you want to find something to get yourself busy with, search for it. Good luck mate! This is all I can do for you.

I'm not saying "theory" is or is not a scientific theory.

Your conclusion was:

"2) The only way that the FE “theory” can become a theory is if FE’ers find other ways to argue, for example by providing evidence for their claims (rather than saying “there is a government conspiracy because there is no proof that there isn’t a government cospiracy”)."

Yet clearly I have shown that FE theory is an actual theory - even if it isn't scientific theory.  It might be scientific theory or it might not be.  You concluded that it's not any kind of theory at all and clearly that shows that you don't understand the definitions of theory or you would have specified that it's not a scientific theory.  You can't decide what you words you meant to use after you've used them and then claim that you're right in hindsight.

Being dense is a good trait? Umm, what's your definition of dense?
Because my definition is:

dense  (dns)
adj. dens·er, dens·est
*snip*

5. Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.

(Source: www.thefreedictionary.com)

I'm not saying "theory" is or is not a scientific theory.

Your conclusion was:

"2) The only way that the FE “theory” can become a theory is if FE’ers find other ways to argue, for example by providing evidence for their claims (rather than saying “there is a government conspiracy because there is no proof that there isn’t a government cospiracy”)."

Yet clearly I have shown that FE theory is an actual theory - even if it isn't scientific theory. It might be scientific theory or it might not be. You concluded that it's not any kind of theory at all and clearly that shows that you don't understand the definitions of theory or you would have specified that it's not a scientific theory. You can't decide what you words you meant to use after you've used them and then claim that you're right in hindsight.

I put forth two separate conclusions independent of each other (I even numbered the analyses). Only one of them proved that the FE theory wasn't a "theory" and it's not the one that you're referring to. One of them proved that your arguments help you lose debates (related to the shape of the earth), while the other one proved that the FE "theory" is not a theory.

Being dense is a good trait? Umm, what's your definition of dense?
Because my definition is:

dense (dns)
adj. dens·er, dens·est
*snip*

5. Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.

(Source: www.thefreedictionary.com)

I thought you were being ironic. Do you literally think you're stupid?

1) Since FE’ers use logical falacies (in the form of negative proofs) in their arguments, and since they believe that the burden of proof lies with RE’ers, their arguments automatically fail. In other words, nobody needs to disprove anything in the FE “theory” since it hasn’t even been proved.

How does that prove the idea of the Earth being flat is not "abstract reasoning or speculation"?

I look outside and the Earth looks flat to me.  I speculate that what I see looks flat, the whole Earth is flat.  That would make my statement that "The Earth is flat" a piece of speculation - which would mean it fits a definition of theory - which would mean it is a theory.  Not a scientific theory - just a theory.  It doesn't mean it's correct but it means that it clearly fits the literal definition of a theory.

I thought you were being ironic. Do you literally think you're stupid?

No, I think I'm dense. A stupid person is dense, but a dense person isn't necessarily stupid.
Sorry for dragging your thread off topic, by the way.

I think bible dude will find that hard to understand.

I look outside and the Earth looks flat to me.

Go to the beach, look to the horizon and notice the curvature of the earth. Maybe you should be a little more open-minded. There are things beyond your eye-sight. Guess you never though about being nothing but an ant in a big, big world.

I think bible dude will find that hard to understand.

Don't know about that, but you certainly do.

No, I think I'm dense. A stupid person is dense, but a dense person isn't necessarily stupid.

Ok, so you're dense and not stupid. Now maybe you can go find the thread that I was referring to.

Quote

1) Since FE’ers use logical falacies (in the form of negative proofs) in their arguments, and since they believe that the burden of proof lies with RE’ers, their arguments automatically fail. In other words, nobody needs to disprove anything in the FE “theory” since it hasn’t even been proved.

How does that prove the idea of the Earth being flat is not "abstract reasoning or speculation"?

I look outside and the Earth looks flat to me.  I speculate that what I see looks flat, the whole Earth is flat.  That would make my statement that "The Earth is flat" a piece of speculation - which would mean it fits a definition of theory - which would mean it is a theory.  Not a scientific theory - just a theory.  It doesn't mean it's correct but it means that it clearly fits the literal definition of a theory.

Looking at something and describing what you see is not making a theory, it's just that, describing what you see.

Yes it is.  I just quoted 3 different dictionaries that define a theory as "abstract reasoning or speculation". - Abstract reasoning or speculation is a theory.  Or else you're right and 3 dictionaries are wrong?

And to be clear I wasn't looking at something and describing what I see - I was looking at something and then speculating that the rest of the Earth is the same.  Therefore, according to three dictionaries, that is a theory.

Yes it is.  I just quoted 3 different dictionaries that define a theory as "abstract reasoning or speculation". - Abstract reasoning or speculation is a theory.  Or else you're right and 3 dictionaries are wrong?

And to be clear I wasn't looking at something and describing what I see - I was looking at something and then speculating that the rest of the Earth is the same.  Therefore, according to three dictionaries, that is a theory.

This issue has already been answered. Clearly the definitions that you copied and pasted are - like much of the things you say - out of context. They do not refer to scientific theories. The FE "theory" was defined as "scientific" by Erasmus. If you disagree with him, then you contradict FE beliefs and therefore are not an Fe'er (like you claim to be). Therefore your definitions, beast, do not stand in this context. Please refer to the explanation below (repeated):

The FE "theory" is claimed (by Erasmus, the voice of reason for FE'ers) to be a scienfitic theory. If you wish, I can paste the thread in which he states this explicitly - that, I will do if you insist, although I think you participated in that discussion with at least one post. Also, here is what www.dictionary.com says about a (scientific) theory:

Quote:
A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.


Quote:
Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Here is what www.wikipedia.com says about a scientific theory (by the way, when you said I "didn't understand" what a theory meant you were actually referring directly to what wikipedia put forth; and no offense, but you are not wikipedia):

Quote:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.


Now, if you don't agree that the FE "theory" is scientific, take it out with Erasmus; if you convince him that it's not scientific, then you lose the argument in which he claimed it was. Either way, it's a win-win for me.

If, instead, you are just here to argue and you don't believe that the earth is flat (in which case you're a liar, because you said you were a flat-earther) then you should specify that ALL you want to do is find holes in the RE theory, not prove the FE one correct. In that case, I can ignore you since I'm not interested in finding holes in the RE theory, but rather show why the FE "theory" is nothing more than a joke.

You weren't talking about scientific theories.  You clearly said, and I quote:

Conclusions:

There are 2 conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis presented above:
1) Since FE’ers use logical falacies (in the form of negative proofs) in their arguments, and since they believe that the burden of proof lies with RE’ers, their arguments automatically fail. In other words, nobody needs to disprove anything in the FE “theory” since it hasn’t even been proved.
2) The only way that the FE “theory” can become a theory is if FE’ers find other ways to argue, for example by providing evidence for their claims (rather than saying “there is a government conspiracy because there is no proof that there isn’t a government cospiracy”).

No mention of "scientific theories".  Clearly I have been demonstrating that we can call it "FE THEORY" regardless of what the definition of a scientific theory is.

You'll need to edit your original statement again and make a new one because this one is false!

I didn't have to specify "scientific theory" in my post. That's a given since your moderator announced that it was scientific in an earlier post. My original statement is correct. However, you proved your ignorance by not being in line with what your fellow FE'ers uphold. Like all of your other "demonstrations", your latest one was futile as well.

We are not all Erasmus and some FEers have different opinions to each other.  Having the same core belief but having differences of opinion doesn't make you ignorant.

You did have to specify "scientific theory" if that is what you're talking about because the word "theory" has different definitions and we can't know which you're talking about if you don't specify - especially in a case like this where under one of the common definitions of "theory" - FEism is undeniably a theory.

From my understanding and based on what is posted in the FAQ, Erasmus, not thebeast, presents the formal opinion upheld by this website. I didn't start this post to convince you of anything, but rather pick on the errors made herein by FE'ers. Therefore when you come here and pick on form, rather than substance, and talk as though you own this forum, you should probably think twice and remember what your place is on this forum and how much people care about you specifically.

I didn't specify "scientific theory" because someone whose words are considered a lot more important than yours (for FE'ers) already pointed out that the FE "theory" was supposedly scientific.

Having the same core belief but having differences of opinion doesn't make you ignorant.

I'm sorry but not thinking that the FE this is a scientific theory, while your moderator does, is a difference in core beliefs. It makes a HELL of a difference.

Erasmus is only a moderator because he has posted here so much and he behaves in a mature manner.  He has stated before that he's just playing the Devils Advocate and he thinks that if people come to this forum and then learn to question the world that it's served a purpose.  Newsflash - he has stated clearly that he doesn't actually believe the Earth to be flat.  Why would the views of somebody who doesn't actually think the Earth is flat represent the views of the Flat Earth Society?  Yet again you've made a bad assumption and are wrong.

Do you actually have a point? I didn't ask for a description of Erasmus or his views.

From my understanding and based on what is posted in the FAQ, Erasmus, not thebeast, presents the formal opinion upheld by this website.

My point was that this comment is clearly false.

I didn't specify "scientific theory" because someone whose words are considered a lot more important than yours (for FE'ers) already pointed out that the FE "theory" was supposedly scientific.

Also false.

I'm sorry but not thinking that the FE this is a scientific theory, while your moderator does, is a difference in core beliefs. It makes a HELL of a difference.

Also false.

To be clear - Erasmus' opinions do not represent the opinions of the flat Earth society.  You should read the FAQ again - it doesn't present the answers as "The Truth" - it clearly states:

Disclaimer

The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
The Flat Earth Society Forums' goal is to promote the free discussion of The Flat Earth Theory as well as the free discussion of and debate of any topic of interest to our members that do not contradict Forum Rules.
The views of any individual or organization (including that of the old Flat Earth Society run by Charles K Johnson) are not necessarily shared in whole or in part by The Flat Earth Society Forums. The only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums (if required) is Daniel.
Also please remember that views of the Forum are not necessarily shared by the Forum Staff who come from both sides of The Flat/Sphere Debate and whose sole unifying purpose is to promote a smooth running forum so as to encourage the victory of truth through free discussion and argument.