A glass dome in the sky is a dumb idea and most people should and do know better

Quote from: jroa on July 13, 2014, 11:49:26 PM

There are well over 500 FE'ers in the current membership register. 

Oh wow!  I was sooo wrong in my interpretations of the numbers of adherents involved!  Sorry for being so deliberately deviant jroa!

The fact (?) that there's apparently over 500 flat earthers—and not the mere 400 I quoted—obviously changes everything.  That makes it all the more obvious that those 7 billion round earthers must be wrong in actuality.  That additional 100 flat earthers really changes the balance of opinion entirely doesn't it?

And thanks for pointing that out jroa.  It's almost enough to make me accept the flat earth belief now.  (Sorry, that was a mean little joke wasn't it hehe?)

     

The truth is not the truth because of statistics.  In fact, statistics have nothing at all to do with truth. 

Virtually everyone used to think that blood letting and leaching would "balance the humors" and cure diseases.  Today, most people understand that this is not true.  According to you, it was the truth hundreds of years ago and time caused it to not be true today.  This is a retarded way of thinking.

Do you really not understand that the majority of people can be wrong?  Statistics is not about finding the truth; it is about finding the likelihood.  You should really learn the difference.

I have to agree with jroa on this one, the statistics you're citing don't prove anything. Furthermore, there isn't any evidence to back them up. You're assuming that the 500 members all believe the Earth to be flat, and none of the rest out of 7 billion believe the Earth is flat. So this is a poor way to advance your argument, based on obviously faulty numbers.

Even if you say, and I think we can probably all agree on this, that the numbers are heavily in favour of the non-flat believers, it's still a poor argument. What you need to address is why the majority might believe it. In the case of blood letting, it was a practice that actually did work in some cases, and this theory of the humours seemed to make sense to people at the time since there wasn't a better explanation available. Today, "Round Earth Theory", i.e. modern physics basically, is the best available explanation based on the current data.

What happens as I see it, the best, most sensible theory tends to get accepted by the majority of people. Of course that doesn't make the theory "right" - no theory is ever "right", it's just that now we have more and better ways of measuring things, which should make our theories better at explaining and predicting phenomena.

So now since we have better data, we have better theories. These get adopted by the scientific community as, if not "right", then at least the best avenue in which to direct their time and money researching. Then these get communicated to the public at large. Since most people aren't scientists, they tend to accept these theories as "right" or "true", or at least they "believe".  In this sense then it's the correctness of the theories that inform the statistics.

If I'm right about the relationship between how good a theory is and how many people believe it, then ausGeoff probably does have a point in citing the statistics (if he can actually back up the numbers with real data), but of course what he can't do is say "because 89% of people believe it, then it's true". Which I don't think is what he's saying, although that's what jroa says he's saying. So jroa is probably making a bit of a straw man to knock down here.

tl;dr Statistics may not prove anything in and of themselves but it's not wrong to cite them in support of your argument as long as they are real numbers you didn't just pull out of a hat.

I thought it was an "ice dome"?

I thought it was an "ice dome"?

An ice dome is an equally terrible idea, possibly more terrible. Although in essence this thread is more about how statistics on what people believe can be used in support of an argument, if used responsibly.

But I am open to more glass/ice dome talk, because that is something I would love to see someone come up with a good argument for.

If I was on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and if I used up all of my lifelines except for the "Ask the Audience" lifeline, and I was being asked a question that I had absolutely no idea how to answer, I'd rather ask the audience than not.

the "ice dome" theory is a little shaky. in space, when the sun is shining, the "ice dome" would be a liquid/gas.
when the sun would not be shining, the "ice dome" would be a liquid. i am not sure how this liquid, gas, solid would survive.

If I was on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and if I used up all of my lifelines except for the "Ask the Audience" lifeline, and I was being asked a question that I had absolutely no idea how to answer, I'd rather ask the audience than not.

And the audience would likely be right, most of the time. I read an interesting article a while back, about a book called "The Wisdom of Crowds". Apparently if you take the average of people's guesses for things like how many jellybeans are in a jar, you get surprisingly accurate answers.

the "ice dome" theory is a little shaky. in space, when the sun is shining, the "ice dome" would be a liquid/gas.
when the sun would not be shining, the "ice dome" would be a liquid. i am not sure how this liquid, gas, solid would survive.

That's one of the first things that come to mind for me too. Another is that it seems very unlikely you'd get a smooth surface, so if you looked at the sky with a telescope, you should see all kinds of waviness and distortion, like you'd see in a natural ice surface.

Another that I just thought of recently is that inside this ice dome, if the sun is inside it, and it's perfectly reflective (these are sceptimatic's claims anyway), where does all the heat go? After thousands of years you'd expect the whole interior to be boiling hot by now, I'd think.

If its glass then the glass blower had big lungs.

If I was on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and if I used up all of my lifelines except for the "Ask the Audience" lifeline, and I was being asked a question that I had absolutely no idea how to answer, I'd rather ask the audience than not.

To stretch the analogy further: If it were a physics question and the entire audience was comprised of physicists, then I would go with their vote without hesitation.

The ice dome is only a dumb idea because people refuse to take the time to understand how it happens and will not give themselves the time to actually question what they've had schooled into them. It is what it is...is the norm...but is it?

I can tell you this much. If denpressure was taught in schools and explained as I have, then it would make sense...on Earth.
If someone came along and said they don't believe in denpressure and it's gravity, then were asked to explin what gravity is a force...so answer like, " oh I don't know what the force is but it is a force."
That person would be shot down in flames...and rightly so.
It's weird how it's not shot down in flames and is accepted, isn't it? Why? Because space nonsense does not work without the fictional gravity, so it has to be gravity, because the universe is what they tell us, right?

It's about time some people actually took some time to think for themselves.
The rotating globe Earth in space works because it's literally been shoehorned to work by process of elimination and adding in ridiculous names to describe utter nonsense, that people just accept as being correct, for no other reason than to appear smarter than the average bear.

The ice dome is a dumb idea.........because it's a dumb idea.

The ice dome is a dumb idea.........because it's a dumb idea.

Because you are trained to accept the real dumb ideas about your Earth and your space. If you can explain what gravity is as a force, I'll try and go back to thinking about your rotating globe.
Over to you.

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 16, 2014, 04:33:01 AM

The ice dome is a dumb idea.........because it's a dumb idea.

Because you are trained to accept the real dumb ideas about your Earth and your space. If you can explain what gravity is as a force, I'll try and go back to thinking about your rotating globe.
Over to you.

There's no point in debating you as it's rather inconceivable that you even believe in the ice dome as an actual thing versus just making stuff up to have a go at people on a message board.

Gravity is a theory. Because scientist do more than just go on message boards to advance their ideas. They experiment and test them and this goes on over numbers of years and the work is shared.

If this were just brainwashing.......the information wouldn't be so accessible and it wouldn't be peer reviewed. But it is. So your brainwashing idea is pretty much dead.

I haven't posted here much at all but I've read a lot of these threads and outside of telling people they are brainwashed....you seem to offer very little in the way of actual debate. You can't back up anything you say with something that comes close to resembling actual evidence and you only refute and shoot down things because you're obviously intimidated by real actual knowledge.

Feel free to carry on with your fictional ice dome idea, I won't interact with you anymore.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 16, 2014, 05:06:45 AM

Quote from: obviouslyround on July 16, 2014, 04:33:01 AM

The ice dome is a dumb idea.........because it's a dumb idea.

Because you are trained to accept the real dumb ideas about your Earth and your space. If you can explain what gravity is as a force, I'll try and go back to thinking about your rotating globe.
Over to you.

There's no point in debating you as it's rather inconceivable that you even believe in the ice dome as an actual thing versus just making stuff up to have a go at people on a message board.

Gravity is a theory. Because scientist do more than just go on message boards to advance their ideas. They experiment and test them and this goes on over numbers of years and the work is shared.

If this were just brainwashing.......the information wouldn't be so accessible and it wouldn't be peer reviewed. But it is. So your brainwashing idea is pretty much dead.

I haven't posted here much at all but I've read a lot of these threads and outside of telling people they are brainwashed....you seem to offer very little in the way of actual debate. You can't back up anything you say with something that comes close to resembling actual evidence and you only refute and shoot down things because you're obviously intimidated by real actual knowledge.

Feel free to carry on with your fictional ice dome idea, I won't interact with you anymore.

You see. You're all typing fingers when you think you have the upper hand, now look at you. I asked you to explain gravity and you take a massive tantrum. Why? It's because you cannot explain gravity as a force, yet you hang onto it like a limpet.
You can't debate with me because I won't back down.

Here's a little tip: try sitting down and asking yourself the real questions about what you've been trained to accept. Start with gravity and try and figure out why genius scientists the world over, cannot decide what it is. Tha answer should be extremely easy if you're prepared to think for yourself.

The ice dome is only a dumb idea because people refuse to take the time to understand how it happens

You can't explain "how it happens".  You admit to having zero evidence for a dome, and you cannot even explain how the very basics work, such as sunsets and seasons.

Nobody will buy it if you can't even provide that diagram you keep promising.

I can tell you this much. If denpressure was taught in schools and explained as I have, then it would make sense...on Earth.

Denpressure is horseshit, and you know it.

The usual content free blah, blah...you are indoctrinated....sheeple....think for yourselves....I've got fuck all so just write pages of self righteous whining.....blah...blah

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 16, 2014, 03:45:35 AM

The ice dome is only a dumb idea because people refuse to take the time to understand how it happens

You can't explain "how it happens".  You admit to having zero evidence for a dome, and you cannot even explain how the very basics work, such as sunsets and seasons.

Nobody will buy it if you can't even provide that diagram you keep promising.

Quote

I can tell you this much. If denpressure was taught in schools and explained as I have, then it would make sense...on Earth.

Denpressure is horseshit, and you know it.

Quote from: sceptimatic

The usual content free blah, blah...you are indoctrinated....sheeple....think for yourselves....I've got fuck all so just write pages of self righteous whining.....blah...blah

Denpressure is what you people call gravity. It's not a theory, it's a fact.

Denpressure is what you people call gravity. It's not a theory, it's a fact.

You're right, denpressure isn't a theory.  If were, then you would be able to show the math that describes it. 

Denpressure is what you people call gravity. It's not a theory, it's a fact.

It's neither, but whatever.

Still waiting for that diagram showing how sunsets work with you ice dome bullshit.

this is a glaring problem i see in debates. one party uses logical fallacy (ie appeal to numbers of people who believe claim in question)... then the other party counters with the exact same logical fallacy. in reality, you should have told him from the get-go that the number of subscribers has no effect on the validity of the claim... why would u waste ur time like this?

how does ice remain solid in space? as at that temperature, it would be a liquid, unless the sun was shining on it, and it would be a gas?

Quote from: jroa on July 15, 2014, 01:06:57 PM

The truth is not the truth because of statistics.  In fact, statistics have nothing at all to do with truth. 

Virtually everyone used to think that blood letting and leaching would "balance the humors" and cure diseases.  Today, most people understand that this is not true.  According to you, it was the truth hundreds of years ago and time caused it to not be true today.  This is a retarded way of thinking.

Do you really not understand that the majority of people can be wrong?  Statistics is not about finding the truth; it is about finding the likelihood.  You should really learn the difference.

I have to agree with jroa on this one, the statistics you're citing don't prove anything. Furthermore, there isn't any evidence to back them up. You're assuming that the 500 members all believe the Earth to be flat, and none of the rest out of 7 billion believe the Earth is flat. So this is a poor way to advance your argument, based on obviously faulty numbers.

The statistics I quote—500 contrary opinions versus 7,000,000,000 other opinions—proves my case precisely.  If it were 5 contrary opinions versus 700 other opinions, then I'd agree it'd require more definitive research.  The flat earther numbers amount to a mere 0.000000714% of the world's population, which figure has NO statistical relevance whatsoever.

Apparently jroa would have us considering the possibility that the 7,000,000,000 round earthers are all wrong.  Seriously?

jroa invariably falls back on this illogical argument time and again in an effort to "prove" that the infinitesimally small number of flat earthers could be right.

And jroa claims that "he truth is not the truth because of statistics".  Of course it is.  Over the last few years in Australia, harsher DUI penalties have  reduced the road toll by more than 100% compared to 40 years ago.  This is reduction is quantitative, and truthful, and proved by the statistics.

 jroa simply doesn't  understand what the term "statistics" is all about.

You missed my point - 500 vs 7billion is based on assumptions of what those two groups actually believe. I think it's possible there are a lot more out of the 7billion who either believe the Earth is flat or don't know or care one way or the other. Your guess is probably closer to being right that it is to being wrong, it's just not based on any actual data.

You still don't get it, ausGeoff.  A billion people could believe in Santa Clause and 5 people could believe that he does not exist.  The numbers mean nothing.  He could exist or not exist without the numbers.  You seem to just have some kind of "I am right because I follow the herd" attitude. 

You still don't get it, ausGeoff.  A billion people could believe in Santa Clause and 5 people could believe that he does not exist.  The numbers mean nothing.  He could exist or not exist without the numbers.  You seem to just have some kind of "I am right because I follow the herd" attitude.

OK, but how likely is it that a billion adults believe in Santa Claus and only 5 don't? Believing doesn't make it true, but people do tend to believe things that are reasonable and plausible.

Quote from: jroa on July 17, 2014, 08:07:55 AM

You still don't get it, ausGeoff.  A billion people could believe in Santa Clause and 5 people could believe that he does not exist.  The numbers mean nothing.  He could exist or not exist without the numbers.  You seem to just have some kind of "I am right because I follow the herd" attitude.

OK, but how likely is it that a billion adults believe in Santa Claus and only 5 don't? Believing doesn't make it true, but people do tend to believe things that are reasonable and plausible.

The subject does not matter, nor do the numbers.  It could be 2 people against 10, or 500 against 7 billion.  The numbers do not make something true. 

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 17, 2014, 08:27:13 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 17, 2014, 08:07:55 AM

You still don't get it, ausGeoff.  A billion people could believe in Santa Clause and 5 people could believe that he does not exist.  The numbers mean nothing.  He could exist or not exist without the numbers.  You seem to just have some kind of "I am right because I follow the herd" attitude.

OK, but how likely is it that a billion adults believe in Santa Claus and only 5 don't? Believing doesn't make it true, but people do tend to believe things that are reasonable and plausible.

The subject does not matter, nor do the numbers.  It could be 2 people against 10, or 500 against 7 billion.  The numbers do not make something true.

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear. Nobody is saying that the numbers make it true. Truth, or at least the best available understanding of it, influences what people believe, in general.

Quote from: jroa on July 17, 2014, 08:51:06 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 17, 2014, 08:27:13 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 17, 2014, 08:07:55 AM

You still don't get it, ausGeoff.  A billion people could believe in Santa Clause and 5 people could believe that he does not exist.  The numbers mean nothing.  He could exist or not exist without the numbers.  You seem to just have some kind of "I am right because I follow the herd" attitude.

OK, but how likely is it that a billion adults believe in Santa Claus and only 5 don't? Believing doesn't make it true, but people do tend to believe things that are reasonable and plausible.

The subject does not matter, nor do the numbers.  It could be 2 people against 10, or 500 against 7 billion.  The numbers do not make something true.

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear. Nobody is saying that the numbers make it true. Truth, or at least the best available understanding of it, influences what people believe, in general.

ausGeoff believes that the numbers mean proof. 

The numbers don't make the subject true.

But the subject being true is why so many people believe and know it.

A ridiculously small percentage of people believe the world to be flat because it's actually round and everyone KNOWS that.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 17, 2014, 09:14:01 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 17, 2014, 08:51:06 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 17, 2014, 08:27:13 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 17, 2014, 08:07:55 AM

You still don't get it, ausGeoff.  A billion people could believe in Santa Clause and 5 people could believe that he does not exist.  The numbers mean nothing.  He could exist or not exist without the numbers.  You seem to just have some kind of "I am right because I follow the herd" attitude.

OK, but how likely is it that a billion adults believe in Santa Claus and only 5 don't? Believing doesn't make it true, but people do tend to believe things that are reasonable and plausible.

The subject does not matter, nor do the numbers.  It could be 2 people against 10, or 500 against 7 billion.  The numbers do not make something true.

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear. Nobody is saying that the numbers make it true. Truth, or at least the best available understanding of it, influences what people believe, in general.

ausGeoff believes that the numbers mean proof.

If you're talking about data that represents a fact about something, like what percentage of cars produced this year were Chevys maybe. But you're right in the sense that stats about people's beliefs don't necessarily mean that what they believe is correct.

ausGeoff believes that the numbers mean proof.

There is complete agreement across the scientific community about the shape of the earth.  That is highly significant in itself, but is not "proof".