DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave

  • 124 Replies
  • 13568 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave
« Reply #120 on: June 05, 2017, 03:11:29 AM »
Quote
Even with the correct definition of evidence you still provide nothing for your model. Your model provides qualitative explanations at best and each one is just another assumption thrown in.
Stop trying to measure dicks and start fucking saying something. Do you agree with the definition of evidence presented in this thread, yes or no?
No, I don't. I already told you why. I also told you why your challenge was a pathetic straw-man. But like usual, you just ignore that because it doesn't fit your agenda and bitch that we are bitching about semantics.

Quote
I already did, and you ignored it.
Must have missed it. Instead of making all these grand claims, how about you prove it? Why is it instead of a one-line answer you decide to just waste time with remarks like this?
Either way it is a waste of time, as if I provide it you are likely to just ignore it again.
It is also typically more than just a one liner.

Here is your definition of evidence again:
Quote
The basic summary is that evidence for a theory is:
a) An observation that is explained by said theory, when
b) That theory does not rely on more assumptions than any alternatives.
So to refute that definition there are numerous options:
For example, by pointing out that you require it to be a theory for it to be evidence, but in order for it to be a theory it must have evidence for it.
That means nothing can ever become a theory because nothing will ever get evidence for it unless it is a theory.

Then there is the option of pointing out what you have claimed many times, an observation or the like can be evidence for multiple possibilities.
It doesn't matter what alternatives there are and how many assumptions they have, it is still evidence for a particular model so the second line is pure bullshit.

Then there is also the semantic discussion of "explained".
For example, is stating "the sun will appear there at this time from this location" an explanation as the theory claims that, or does it need to explain why/how the sun will appear there?

Notice how that compares to your challenge?
Quote
provide just one example of either:
1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Notice how it doesn't cover all possibilities.

I list the properties of aether and how it flows, they're common sense.
No, they go completely against common sense as I pointed out before. For example, common sense indicates that the aether will merely flow to remove the concentration gradients and then stop.


I'm sure you could easily construct experiments to verify that things fall with varying acceleration depending on height and distance from the poles, or the coriolis effect, etc.
The issue is your model has no solid explanation for that, nor any quantitative analysis.

I don't see why I would need to list experiments to confirm well-known observations, but if you really want me to I can, just try to be a bit more specific.
How about you provide something quantitative.
For example, tell us how to figure out the apparent position of the sun from anywhere on Earth.
Can you do that?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave
« Reply #121 on: June 06, 2017, 03:05:06 PM »
Lonegranger, as ever, I'll answer you when you answer me: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70762.msg1915879#msg1915879

Zammo, start a thread if you want to discuss that. users, like markjo below if you want proof, insist that my definition is not good enough. I would like them to explain why rather than constantly evading. We've hit page 5 and they're still refusing to actually justify their claim.
I will be happy to discuss aether with you, but only in a thread where it is the relevant subject.

Quote
What's wrong with your definition is that it doesn't match the definition that the rest of the scientific community uses.
No. I phrase it differently but that's it, I am still waiting for anyone to actually tell me what the hell is wrong with it. i don't suppose you're planning to do so at any stage? It seems like you'd rather just whine and assert. Tell me what the problem is already. "You phrase it differently!" Is bullshit. Where exactly is the contradiction between the two?
You have a challenge I'm still waiting for a response to.

Quote
I'm not asking for experiments showing variations in earth's gravitational field.  I'm asking for experiments confirming the existence of aether and its properties.
It is the same thing. The properties of aether imply such things as variation in the Earth's gravitational feel. What you're asking for seems to be "Provide proof of aether without using any of the consequences of it." That's impossible by definition, all we can ever use as evidence is consequences.



Quote
So to refute that definition there are numerous options:
For example, by pointing out that you require it to be a theory for it to be evidence, but in order for it to be a theory it must have evidence for it.
That means nothing can ever become a theory because nothing will ever get evidence for it unless it is a theory.
Or you could not be a moron and accept 'theory' can mean, to use the first definition you get on google, "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." No evidence required.
This is my problem with you. You intentionally act moronic. You zoom in on the one specific definition of one specific word and poke holes in that when anyone with even a slither of a brain can tell you it's pretty fucking clearly not the definition that's being used. Why is it so hard to expect you to think?


Quote
Then there is the option of pointing out what you have claimed many times, an observation or the like can be evidence for multiple possibilities.
It doesn't matter what alternatives there are and how many assumptions they have, it is still evidence for a particular model so the second line is pure bullshit.

This is self-contradictory bullshit. Yes, one observation can be evidence for multiple possibilities, so to be evidence for a model we have to be able to minimize assumptions. Yet more pointless whinging.

Quote
Notice how it doesn't cover all possibilities.
Which you've yet to show. You provided some masturbatory whining which makes zero sense and is pure semantic garbage, and no you don't get to use the "But we're talking about the definition of a word!" excuse because we are talking about a specific, given definition of a word. You're actively and willfully misinterpreting a plainly stated post because you're incapable of honest and serious discussion, and it is beyond pathetic. And, as ever, if you had actual issues you would be able to provide an example, not an abstract.


So I'm done with your infantile bullshit until you can actually respond to the challenge, or provide an actual third option for an answer that a fucking five year old couldn't see through. Grow up.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave
« Reply #122 on: June 06, 2017, 07:20:36 PM »
JRowe, you really should just accept defeat with dignity. It would make you a better man. You only continue to embarrass yourself.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave
« Reply #123 on: June 07, 2017, 03:39:51 AM »
Quote
So to refute that definition there are numerous options:
For example, by pointing out that you require it to be a theory for it to be evidence, but in order for it to be a theory it must have evidence for it.
That means nothing can ever become a theory because nothing will ever get evidence for it unless it is a theory.
Or you could not be a moron and accept 'theory' can mean, to use the first definition you get on google, "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." No evidence required.
So you accept that there is nothing scientific about your definitions or model at all? Thanks.

I'm not the one being a moron here.

This is my problem with you. You intentionally act moronic. You zoom in on the one specific definition of one specific word and poke holes in that when anyone with even a slither of a brain can tell you it's pretty fucking clearly not the definition that's being used.
So you bitch and moan that we are discussing semantics, for a discussion on semantics.
You know that words have multiple meanings.
You are pretending your model is scientific.
In the realm of science a theory has a very specific definition.
It isn't insane to act like that is the definition you should be using.

There is also a big difference between a "theory" and a model.
A "theory" can be quite vague, just crap like "earth is flat" and can completely contradict itself.
A model can't. In order for it to be a model, it requires a degree of specificity, it must be internally consistent, it must be capable of predicting things.
So it still doesn't match.

Quote
Then there is the option of pointing out what you have claimed many times, an observation or the like can be evidence for multiple possibilities.
It doesn't matter what alternatives there are and how many assumptions they have, it is still evidence for a particular model so the second line is pure bullshit.

This is self-contradictory bullshit. Yes, one observation can be evidence for multiple possibilities, so to be evidence for a model we have to be able to minimize assumptions. Yet more pointless whinging.
No. This is not self contradictory bullshit. But your claims about it is.

This part here sums it up best:
"Yes, one observation can be evidence for multiple possibilities, so to be evidence for a model we have to be able to minimize assumptions."
You are claiming that it can be evidence for multiple possibilities, these possibilities are the models.
So you are claiming it can be evidence for multiple models.
But then say it has to minimise assumptions to be evidence.

You also say that just because things are evidence for RET that doesn't mean they can't be evidence for other theories/models.

You can't have it both ways. PICK ONE, can it be evidence for multiple models, or just one?

Quote
Notice how it doesn't cover all possibilities.
Which you've yet to show. You provided some masturbatory whining which makes zero sense and is pure semantic garbage
And there you go again, dismissing semantics in a discussion purely on semantics.
You started this discussion purely for semantics, to bitch about what things mean, and then you complain and bitch and moan when people start using semantics?

Do you want a discussion on the meaning of words or not?

I provided rational arguments against your crap.
While my arguments made sense, yours do not. You contradicted yourself yet again. This time in the same sentence.

you don't get to use the "But we're talking about the definition of a word!" excuse because we are talking about a specific, given definition of a word.
No, that isn't an excuse, it is a simple fact.
We are talking about the definition of a word, a word which you defined and refuse to admit you were wrong about.

You're actively and willfully misinterpreting a plainly stated post because you're incapable of honest and serious discussion, and it is beyond pathetic.
No. I'm pointing out the problems with your definition because you asked for it.
I have tried having honest and serious discussion with you but you just resort to crap like this.
You were the one that brought up this pathetic discussion, and before you try to blame us, don't. You continually appealed to your BS website claiming you had a section entitled "evidence" and thus there is plenty of evidence for your BS.
That is why we pointed out your definition is BS and your "evidence" section contains no evidence.


And, as ever, if you had actual issues you would be able to provide an example, not an abstract
Why would I need to provide examples when you already claimed they exist on your website and have repeatedly claimed them here?
For example, sun sets, clear evidence of a round Earth, which you claim is also evidence for your pile of shit.


So I'm done with your infantile bullshit until you can actually respond to the challenge, or provide an actual third option for an answer that a fucking five year old couldn't see through. Grow up.
I have, you are the one being childish. Sticking your fingers in your ears and insulting people instead of admitting you were wrong.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave
« Reply #124 on: June 08, 2017, 06:59:26 AM »
Quote
What's wrong with your definition is that it doesn't match the definition that the rest of the scientific community uses.
No. I phrase it differently but that's it, I am still waiting for anyone to actually tell me what the hell is wrong with it. i don't suppose you're planning to do so at any stage? It seems like you'd rather just whine and assert. Tell me what the problem is already. "You phrase it differently!" Is bullshit. Where exactly is the contradiction between the two?
You have a challenge I'm still waiting for a response to.
Your different phrasing is a grossly over simplified and misleading.  For example, you say that the evidence must be explained by the theory.  That's wrong.  Evidence is data that is used to test a theory and can either support or refute that theory.


Quote
I'm not asking for experiments showing variations in earth's gravitational field.  I'm asking for experiments confirming the existence of aether and its properties.
It is the same thing. The properties of aether imply such things as variation in the Earth's gravitational feel. What you're asking for seems to be "Provide proof of aether without using any of the consequences of it." That's impossible by definition, all we can ever use as evidence is consequences.
No, it isn't the same thing.  I'm asking how you know that those consequences are the result of aether and not other phenomena.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.