FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are a jo

  • 36 Replies
  • 5781 Views
Re: FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2006, 05:49:27 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I'm pretty sure at the dawn of man, people thought the earth was flat.


I mean't that all the little things you use as "proof" of a flat earth by calling them a governemtn conspiracy, have been around before there was even a government.

EG:
Quote
Whaa?!?  Thousands of years ago, people had flying machines?  You mean like birds...or...something?


I was being sarcastic, saying that according to the flat earth society, there can't be shooting stars (as in meteors and asteriods) becaue space is only a few kms away. So your only explaination would be high flying planes set up by the government o create the impression of shooting stars.....only shooting stars have been recorded since man could write and/or draw. Even the 'all powerful' government couldn't had flying machines back then
Quote

Good job on being taken in by a hoax site


Good job being taken in by THIS hoax site....idiot

Quote

How does www.alaska.net = www.flatearthsociety.org?  Why do you take their word to be ours?

t all boils down to the same thing - ridiculous beliefs and beyond unbelievable explainations for everything - and despit what some say.....You guys DON'T have any proof!!! Infact you have all proof going against you FULLY

Quote

Are they joking?

Yes, they are.[/quote]

Yes the Alaska one was, and so is this - they are the same. Eitherit's a joke, or the people behind it are just theorists who don't do any research and just come up with dumb pointless theories.....no, I can not think of any reason to create this theory other than IT'S A JOKE!!

You're the butt of a joke
"Oh, but you are..."
Don't even think of writting that!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2006, 07:41:36 AM »
Quote from: "tylerngataki"

I was being sarcastic,

So was I.  A point that was obviously lost on another person besides biblicul.
Quote
saying that according to the flat earth society, there can't be shooting stars (as in meteors and asteriods) becaue space is only a few kms away.

3000+ miles is not a few kilometers.  Nobody believes that aircraft are responsible for shooting stars.  These objects just get in our way as we travel through space.
Quote


Yes the Alaska one was, and so is this - they are the same.

The two sites are not the same, and this site is not a joke or some 'experiment'.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are a jo
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2006, 10:40:45 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
The evidence couldn't be clearer, you can see instances of circular reasoning in Rowbotham's texts.


Well, so far none have been actually quoted by you that I can recall... they only reference I could find was to the introduction, which is currently under contention as an example of a demonstration of circular reasoning (I say it isn't).

Quote
Also, the fact that the scientific community recognised the method to be invalid kinds of suppports the notion that the method is invalid.


Interestingly, it also supports the notion that the scientists are liars.

Quote
You just quoted text from an instance of someone describing Zeteticism use of circular logic. Nothing is the absence of a phenomenon. Since you found something to quote, then there is something. Something is the opposite of nothing.


Notwithstanding your ineloquent presentation of the metaphysics of nothingness, all I found was somebody else claiming that zeteticism is circular.  I have also found -- on the very same page, in fact -- somebody claiming that the Earth is flat.  Fortunately merely claiming a thing does not make it true... although perhaps you and bibicul, who wish to paint me as some sort of rapist of logic, would care to disagree.

Quote
Plus, you never mention it again if they don't look it up


I'd gladly accept an hourly salary to be your teacher; you sorely need one, and I sorely need the money.  Until then I don't feel motivated to follow up on your progress.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are a jo
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2006, 09:04:09 PM »
Quote
Well, so far none have been actually quoted by you that I can recall... they only reference I could find was to the introduction, which is currently under contention as an example of a demonstration of circular reasoning (I say it isn't).


Well, if it's you against the world, knock yourself out. I remember you saying that what you think is irrelevant.

Quote
Interestingly, it also supports the notion that the scientists are liars.


How so?

Quote
Notwithstanding your ineloquent presentation of the metaphysics of nothingness, all I found was somebody else claiming that zeteticism is circular. I have also found -- on the very same page, in fact -- somebody claiming that the Earth is flat. Fortunately merely claiming a thing does not make it true


Can you not read? Or are you pretending you don't understand again?

I never said it made the statment true. You said there was nothing supporting it, I showed you there was something. You're falling back on sarcasm again.

Quote
I'd gladly accept an hourly salary to be your teacher; you sorely need one, and I sorely need the money. Until then I don't feel motivated to follow up on your progress.


You left out part of the statment again. Again, you are unable to give an explanation and fall back on sarcasm. You want people to look up something that proves you wrong? right. That makes sense. Oout of the kindness of your heart pobably.

I don't remember calling you a rapist of logic, and  Idon,t see what bibicul has to do with this, but if something compells you to describe yourself in that way, it might be a hint.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are a jo
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2006, 03:39:03 AM »
Quote
Those aren't facts and I'm not claiming them to be facts.

Obviously literally you can state a fact without backing it up - it's theoretically a possible thing to do.  It's just typically in a argument you won't convince people if you don't give some sources behind your facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

"A fact is something that is the case. It is the state of affairs reported by a true statement."

Now I'm sure you can understand that when somebody makes a statement - any statement at all regardless of who is saying it, the fact that it's being said does not automatically mean that what they're saying is indeed a true statement.  I can say "the world is flat" as much as I like and you can say "the world is round" as much as you like and the mere fact that we're saying this does not the definition of what a fact is and does not make either of those statements "facts".  If you're going to make a statement and treat it as a fact, you need to show that it is indeed a true statement - otherwise it's not a fact.  It might turn out later to be a fact but until the true statements behind it are identified, you can't claim it as a fact.  Now plenty of people argue things without sourcing their arguments and get away with it - so you can argue things as facts without proving that they are but really they can't be accepted as facts.  Certainly if you ever take the time to watch a real court case or parliament you'll see that every single fact that is presented is presented with a source.  Not only does sourcing what you say give your argument more weight - which makes you a better debater but it also makes the debate between people much better because it's easier to understand why you're saying what you're saying and the debaters can be on the same page, so to speak.

Now what I've stated is not a fact - it is based on what could be described as a fact in the wikipedia entry for "fact" but after that I'm putting forward an argument.  You could call it an opinion too if you like.  It's not necessary to source arguments and opinions and if something is really obvious (like what happens in court cases and parliament) it's not usually necessary to back things up with a source because they aren't contentious issues.  If you believe that they are then ask for a source by all means and I will provide some.


I don't have a problem with what you said here, nor do I think that it disproves anything that I said earlier. If you attempted to explain yourself, then ok. Like I pointed out earlier, it was ironic to see that you asked to see evidence for certain statements that RE'ers made and claimed certain things while not posting any evidence yourself. Obviously this stood out to you too since you made a long comment about it.

Quote
Quote
By definition, a zetetic theory is an example of a circular argument, and therefore a good example of a logical fallacy. The following is an extract from the introduction to Samuel Birley Rowbotham's book by John Bruno Hare (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm):

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).


That extract is not a fact - it's an opinion.  It's clearly a stated opinion because the part you're beginning with starts with "As far as I can see..."


It's a qualified opinion, since it made the introduction to this book. If we're to judge things based on what you say, then everything is an opinion. Fine with me, but then some opinions are valid and others aren't. What I posted was not just any opinion, but rather one that was published with the book and drew a conclusion based upon it.

Quote
Also you are wrong in saying "by definition, a zetetic theory is an example of a circular argument."  

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

Zetetic: Seeking; proceeding by inquiry.
Zetetic method: (Math.), the method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems. [R.] --Hutton.
Zetetic: A seeker; -- a name adopted by some of the Pyrrhonists.

You really should look up and understand a word before you use it - there is nothing in the definition that suggest a circular argument.  Or maybe you're right and the dictionary is wrong?


My initial sentence "by definition, a zetetic theory is an example of a circular argument." is false based on the definition on www.dictionary.com. However, upon further investigation you may notice that the FE "theory", which I was referring to directly, does not actually fall in the category of "zetatic" either - at least not if we base it on the definition of www.dictionary.com. Firstly, the author uses "zetatic" as "license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat)" as I've stated before, and secondly, his investigation is extremely limited, referring to just what he sees rather than analyzing things from other perspectives (literally, like from space). Surely the investigations required to build a formal theory (whether zetatic or of any other type) need to be in-depth, which is not the case of the FE "theory", based on so many assumptions and lacking the evidence needed (by definition) by a zetatic theory. Lastly, this forum does not put out a zetatic theory - if it were so, then it would not talk about "the acceleration of earth at 9,8 m/s^2" or other physical phenomena based on science, but rather on direct search, as per the definition. The conclusion of my post is therefore unaffected by the mistake in my definition of "zetatic" - meaning that, again, you took a certain sentence out of my statement and commented on it rather than on the conclusions that I drew. What I claimed was that the FE "theory" is scientific, not zetatic, given how it's presented here.

*

beast

  • 2997
FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are a jo
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2006, 03:56:45 AM »
Quote from: "bibicul"
What I claimed was that the FE "theory" is scientific, not zetatic, given how it's presented here.


You what now?

FE Society is real, the "facts" behind it are a jo
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2006, 04:21:14 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "bibicul"
What I claimed was that the FE "theory" is scientific, not zetatic, given how it's presented here.


You what now?


Again, nonsense, and you don't know what to respond.