Does it look flat?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 09, 2014, 10:17:22 AM

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

Of course not. The indoctrinated are here in force on this site. Talking of which, anyone know what happened to starman?

Probably got abducted by NASA.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 09, 2014, 10:17:22 AM

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

Of course not. The indoctrinated are here in force on this site. Talking of which, anyone know what happened to starman?

Yes, all of us who disagree with you are so indoctrinated, so brainwashed, with our "words", and "definitions", and "logic". How ever do you stand it here?

 

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 09, 2014, 12:09:59 AM

Quote from: legion on July 08, 2014, 12:45:10 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 08, 2014, 06:29:42 AM

Quote from: legion on July 07, 2014, 02:58:22 PM

Because I observe the fire alarm. You're not very good at this, are you?

And this is where you've shot yourself in the foot.  If you're asleep in your bedroom and the fire alarm goes off in your front hallway, you're not observing it.  You're hearing it.  And if you happen to be deaf, you'll possibly burn to death.

You also said earlier that "to be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses".

This is obviously disproved by the fire alarm scenario.

In other words: you are wrong as observation is not only concerned with sight. I can empirically prove that clapping my hands makes a noise. Similarly, I can empirically prove the existence of thunder.

I'm sorry; do you always rely merely on a dictionary to support your pseudo-scientific claims?  I would've thought a science text book would've been more appropriate in supporting a scientific concept.  Yes?

Can I ask you how you can observe a ringing fire alarm in another room of your house if you happen to be deaf?  You can't, obviously.

And you can clap your hands as much as you like, but you cannot prove to me—empirically—that it makes any sound, or even that you're doing so.  Unless you happen to live next door to my house.  Which, thankfully, you don't LOL.

I'm not sure as to why you seem to waste so much time looking up dictionary definitions every couple of posts;  you obviously have a love of semantics to the Nth degree.  Or you're obsessively pedantic.  Or both maybe?

You have claimed many times to have a deep understanding of logic and science. If that were the case, you'd be aware that definitions have to be agreed upon otherwise you end up in ridiculous situations. Like the one you have put yourself in by redefining the words observe and empirical.

As for the other inane comments from markjo and crab: yawn.

Well, since you agree that definitions need to be agreed upon, why are you insisting that observations and experience have the words "personal" or "first hand" in front of them in the definition you linked to?

f that were the case, you'd be aware that definitions have to be agreed upon

And they have been agreed upon: ask any professional scientist what they think is meant by empirical and they will tell you the same thing.  It certainly doesn't mean you have to make the measurements yourself - they would find that idea deeply silly.

If your entire debating tactic comes down to playing dictionary games, then you might as well just pack it in.

Sadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.

Well I mean, he didn't read the label, but at least he checked to see whether it was water or lighter-fluid he poured down.

If your entire debating tactic comes down to playing dictionary games, then you might as well just pack it in.

When you're totally bereft of any empirical scientific evidence—as is legion—then semantics becomes a very important weapon in your arsenal.

And refuting "arguments" put forth by pedantic semanticists is like trying to herd cats;  a hell of a lot of work for virtually no reward LOL.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2014, 12:46:35 PM

If your entire debating tactic comes down to playing dictionary games, then you might as well just pack it in.

When you're totally bereft of any empirical scientific evidence—as is legion—then semantics becomes a very important weapon in your arsenal.

And refuting "arguments" put forth by pedantic semanticists is like trying to herd cats;  a hell of a lot of work for virtually no reward LOL.

Why don't you tell me what empirical means to you and everyone else (like you)? Instead of waffling on about cats and pedantism.

Quote from: legion on July 08, 2014, 02:18:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 08, 2014, 02:06:34 PM

Education, entertainment, research, etc...

You?

To make people less trusting.

Well, since no one trusts anything that you have to say, I'd say "Job well done."

I think there's a lot that trusts what legion has to say, they just don't all jump in and tell you lot. You see; people view the forum who will see the little posse of posters straining at the leash to put down the lone poster arguing against their beloved mainstream nonsense.

You people do an excellent job of making people question indoctrination by the way you all go on the attack. You are not the main one by the way as you only enter when it's the right time to hit on a post but the rest are almost fanatical in their attempts to counter anything that goes against their trusted peers.

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

You assume because you are in numbers with an agenda of some sort, other wise you would not be here, simple as that.
You're not here to learn anything, you're here to try and batter down anyone who starts to think for themselves.
You know this and you know that we know it as well.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 09, 2014, 10:17:22 AM

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

You assume because you are in numbers with an agenda of some sort, other wise you would not be here, simple as that.
You're not here to learn anything, you're here to try and batter down anyone who starts to think for themselves.
You know this and you know that we know it as well.

You know that we know that I know that you know that Rama knows that I know that we know that NASA knows that you know that I know that we know you are completely wrong.

Go ahead, think for yourself. I encourage it, but don't turn your cheek on the facts just because you don't like them.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 09, 2014, 10:17:22 AM

You may have noticed that there is very little agreement on your side.

You assume because you are in numbers with an agenda of some sort, other wise you would not be here, simple as that.
You're not here to learn anything, you're here to try and batter down anyone who starts to think for themselves.
You know this and you know that we know it as well.

But do you know that I know what I know about how you know what you know?

Didn't think so.

You are actually dead wrong about me.  But obviously you are not open to having your mind changed, so I won't even tell you why.  nah nah.

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.

You lose.

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.

You lose.

I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.

You lose.

I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.

I bet. I'm convinced that if you walked on the moon yourself you would still not believe in space.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 10, 2014, 12:02:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.

Try again.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 10, 2014, 12:02:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.

You are quite right. Educating someone is just that: education.

If I was being a free thinker, I would reject what I was told, and seek the answers for myself. Which I have done. The fact that my conclusions match that of everyone else doesn't make me close minded or brainwashed. It simply means that facts are facts.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 12:11:52 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.

You lose.

I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.

I bet. I'm convinced that if you walked on the moon yourself you would still not believe in space.

Oh I would but it's not going to happen. You know this. I'm convinced you know this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 12:13:01 PM

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 10, 2014, 12:02:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.

You are quite right. Educating someone is just that: education.

If I was being a free thinker, I would reject what I was told, and seek the answers for myself. Which I have done. The fact that my conclusions match that of everyone else doesn't make me close minded or brainwashed. It simply means that facts are facts.

If your conclusions match those of the indoctrinated due to your free thinking then you have mistakenly took free thinking from the exact same thing you thought you were thinking against but followed subconsciously.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 10, 2014, 12:21:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 12:13:01 PM

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 10, 2014, 12:02:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.

You are quite right. Educating someone is just that: education.

If I was being a free thinker, I would reject what I was told, and seek the answers for myself. Which I have done. The fact that my conclusions match that of everyone else doesn't make me close minded or brainwashed. It simply means that facts are facts.

If your conclusions match those of the indoctrinated due to your free thinking then you have mistakenly took free thinking from the exact same thing you thought you were thinking against but followed subconsciously.

You do realize that facts are facts regardless if one is a free thinker or an "orthodox" thinker, correct?

Your opinions have no effect what is.

Rejecting facts because you want to think of yourself as a free thinker is willful ignorance.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 12:15:10 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 12:11:52 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Gain no ground? We are prevention. I certainly don't see any populations beginning to think the world is flat.

You lose.

I won the minute I started questioning fantasy space indoctrination and the Earth being a globe. You will never change my mind back to that way in a million life times.

I bet. I'm convinced that if you walked on the moon yourself you would still not believe in space.

Oh I would but it's not going to happen. You know this. I'm convinced you know this.

I do have a feeling you will never be to the moon or even to space. I just don't think it's because it is impossible like you do. I hope that in our lifetimes, going into space will not be too out of the ordinary or expensive.

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 10, 2014, 12:02:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 10, 2014, 11:38:13 AM

As long as you both know that you gain no ground in your quest to batter down those that can think for themselves.
Oh and stop copying each other, it makes you look weaker than you already are.

Engaging in willful ignorance is not being a free thinker.

Try to tell a free thinker that he is engaging in wilful ignorance, is not a free thinker.

Since you are ignoring about 99% of the available evidence, that pretty much makes you the very definition of wilfully ignorant.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.