Vagueness in FE

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 01, 2019, 03:48:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 03:45:04 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 01, 2019, 02:54:16 PM

My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.

Just maybe if Jimster got any FE answers we might see fewer new topics.

I know your knee jerk reaction is to defend all RE, no matter how retarted they are, but have a look at this thread. It is several threads merged together. There's no FE topic. There aren't any FE questions. He just moans about flat earthers all the time.

  You should learn to spell the word "retarded" before calling people by that name.

You should lurk moar.

You pick on an example that is, while nor impossible, is pretty difficult for the individual to do, measure distances between continents.

I ask what is the FE position on maps, I get no one map, no map with a scale in km or mi, just "could be whatever". ANd no concern from FEs that they can't make a map. Vague is a good thing if you want your position to not be revealed as false.

I didn't pick that topic. Why aren't you concerned that Rab can't make the map he says he can make? Vague is a good thing when he doesn't want his position to be revealed as false.

Anyone can see how silly it is. Vague is weaponized as unscientific or falsehood. Unless we're discussing the expansion of the universe and "dark energy" (which may or may not exist, and no one can explain, or demonstrate, existing solely ad hoc). Or any of Orthodoxy 's million other "vagueries".

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 01:21:35 PM

Basically, the FE tactic seems to be that if is there is no well defined "Flat Earth Theory" the FE can never be debunked.

You act like that matters. Science tends not to give a flying duckdodgers about debunking. The death knell in science is not 'debunked,' it's 'lacks evidence.' The sooner you get your head around that, the sooner you'll hopefully stop this tediousness.

You are under no obligation to attempt debunks. The moment you attempt to, you should be doing it out of interest in what a model has to say, not the pursuit of a likely impossible disproof. Acting as though something needs to be disproven is how pseudoscience gets propagated. Thought you were against that?

Actually, it’s pretty much exactly how science works.  There’s room for flexibility in the method, but it generally boils down to:
1.  Propose a hypothesis.
2.  Make predictions based on the hypothesis.
3.  Do experiments or take measurements to test the hypothesis.
4.  Dismiss or refine hypothesis as required.
5.  Go to 1.

Although I do have a problem with the word “debunking”, which generally exists in internet discussions, not scientific literature.

Putting this here since I get in trouble posting elsewhere. LOL
Of course the moderator can move this as they wish.

I may be overlooking something or missed something.
I have asked several times about the horizon on a flat Earth  but haven't gotten any answers or some rather vague ones.

But as to the horizon, under normal circumstances there is nothing vague about the horizon in actual practice on the "round earth."
You know exactly what the horizon is.
You know where it is.
You can actually get a fair estimate of how far you can see to the horizon by a simple  equation.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of a constant of 1.14 times the square  root of the height of  observer  above sea level  (in feet)
Examples are that a person standing up in a small boat at sea level can only see about 2 miles to the horizon  while a  person in the crow's nest on a ship.....say 80 feet or so above sea level can see about 10 miles  to the horizon.
All of this is evidence that has long since been verified from experience

Could you supply some information on how this would be on a flat Earth ?

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

Do you know why dark energy is called dark energy?

It’s because it’s purely hypothetical, and if it does exist, no one knows what it is.  It’s a placeholder name given for whatever accounts for the difference between observed expansion of the universe and predictions based on the standard model.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know".

Bollocks.  There are things that  we (meaning humanity as a whole) know with high degree of certainty and things left unanswered.

It’s a huge false equivalence to compare knowledge on something like the expansion of the universe with knowledge about the shape of the earth.

His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holy writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them. 

Wikipedia isn’t infallible, but it’s vastly better than Samual Rowbotham’s mess or a host of daft YouTube videos.

How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must mbe comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

Oh, you want to go there, do you?

How about all the flat earthers who say they don’t like modern cosmology because they don’t like the idea of us being small and insignificant in an expanding universe? Who need the earth and humanity to be at the center of everything because we special? Despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

Who’s really “clutching like a child with a teddy bear”, here?

Quote from: lonegranger

You pick on an example that is, while nor impossible, is pretty difficult for the individual to do, measure distances between continents.

Quote from: jiminycrickets

I ask what is the FE position on maps, I get no one map, no map with a scale in km or mi, just "could be whatever". ANd no concern from FEs that they can't make a map. Vague is a good thing if you want your position to not be revealed as false.

I didn't pick that topic. Why aren't you concerned that Rab can't make the map he says he can make? Vague is a good thing when he doesn't want his position to be revealed as false.

Anyone can see how silly it is. Vague is weaponized as unscientific or falsehood. Unless we're discussing the expansion of the universe and "dark energy" (which may or may not exist, and no one can explain, or demonstrate, existing solely ad hoc). Or any of Orthodoxy 's million other "vagueries".

I think what you say  Rab can do or not do is pretty irrelevant. Let’s just stick to the facts, which you say you love, though I’ve not seen you present a single one so far.

Dark energy, no one knows it’s exact nature, no one has seen it directly, it’s only been assumed it must exist based on observations and measurements of how stars move inside star clusters and galaxies. Thought while I may not have explained it properly it’s pretty much a fact that no one is sure of it’s existance. What I find perplexing is, how do you know about dark energy? Are you an astronomer? Do you have a flat earth observatory? If not I don’t think you are in any position to comment about dark energy one way or another as it’s something well beyond your abilities to know even the slightest thing about. Any comments you had to make on this subject would simply be your fact free opinion which would be less than worthless, So let’s just stick to the facts and as you love them so much it should be something you will enjoy.

As you said you love facts, sorry to bring it up again, but I love facts too, so how about providing some facts regarding the sun that FE believers appear to be very vague on. If we remember this discussion is not about Rab, it’s about how flat earthers tend to be very vague. If you want to discuss Rab, go start another thread, let’s just stick to the alleged vagueness of FE belief.

If you provide some of your facts regarding the sun I’ll present some of my facts. Though I think we will need some ground rules, to avoid vagueness. For a fact to be a fact it needs some form of corroborated evidence, but as you love facts you will be aware of this.

If you don’t want to provide facts about the sun we could discuss the matter of maps and distances that you touched on in an earlier post. I’m assuming this may be a topic you find interesting, and I’m sure as you love facts you will have lots at your fingertips.

I can start by saying it’s a fact that the distance between any two points you care to mention on the surface of the earth is known to within a meter or so. It’s a fact because I have verifiable evidence that can support this statement. You are at liberty to disagree but it must be with facts rather than some vague statement.

Quote from: Tommyocean on February 03, 2019, 05:26:11 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 01, 2019, 03:48:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 03:45:04 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 01, 2019, 02:54:16 PM

My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.

Just maybe if Jimster got any FE answers we might see fewer new topics.

I know your knee jerk reaction is to defend all RE, no matter how retarted they are, but have a look at this thread. It is several threads merged together. There's no FE topic. There aren't any FE questions. He just moans about flat earthers all the time.

  You should learn to spell the word "retarded" before calling people by that name.

You should lurk moar.

I don’t see how your low content post is relevant to the discussion. If you want to throw some scorn in his direction why not use AR, I’ve heard it’s the section of the forum where people indulge in that sort of thing.

The topic under discussion is how FE belief is based on vagueness and lacks any real verifiable facts. What’s you view on that?

Karen Douglas, a psychologist who studies FE, says that the vagueness of FE is part of its appeal.

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

This makes sense to me, since I always want to pin things down. When I have everything pinned down and it matches, it is right (to me, some go by gut feel or match those around them, or whatever). This accounts for some of the bad feeling here, I am trying to pin down while FEs like it vague.

I have been told many times by FEs things like:

"We don't know yet", "Could be several things", "different FEs have different theories on that", etc.

I would like to pin down the conspiracies. I think a conspiracy big enough to fool everyone about RE and furnish things like GPS that work AND appear to use "false" RE explanations would be detectable and describable. FEs will not pursue that with me.

I ask what is the FE position on maps, I get no one map, no map with a scale in km or mi, just "could be whatever". ANd no concern from FEs that they can't make a map. When it comes to maps, vague is a bad thing if you want to go somewhere. Vague is a good thing if you want your position to not be revealed as false.

FE will not be pinned down. RE is totally pinned down, one definitive position.

For FE to become accepted and useful, it must stop being vague. If you like it vague, you don't want it to conclude anything. Enjoying endless speculation may entertain you, but it is the opposite of science, acceptance and usefulness.

RE just romps over FE daily, we win so big every day, a couple of web sites with lots of name calling and ignorance versus the actual facts used to do things like make container ships show up with goods for you and me and pretty much all educated modern people.

If you want to play with the big boys, you need peer reviewed experiments, facts useful to enfineers, a pinned down and consistent system. Even if you pick at RE all day, it is a spoonful out of the ocean of facts interconnected that support RE.

FE is vague, and therefor not useful. Can some FE give me some definite info on any part of FE? If so, why does that person not convince all FEs?

RE is not vague, many have investigated, and using the info has helped to pin it down. For instance, In 1500, people needed accurate navigation and did not have it. Over hundreds of years, people pinned down RE in a consistent way, and now we have consistent facts useful to navigate precisely based on information increasingly pinned down and correlated with other things.

FE has none of this and won't because it would have to pin things down, and that process could never work without pinning things down.

FE can't pin down, because the process would reveal that FE is false, and RE is true, and that is why FEs won't go there.

For one who really does love facts, I think you have asked an excellent and very valid question. It would be a breath of fresh air if some of the flat earth big hitters started providing some of their facts so we can understand where they are coming from. Discussing dark energy, a topic which no one knows anything about is totally  pointless. I think to answer your question we should stick to a subject where both sides can present good hard facts.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 03, 2019, 02:49:44 PM

Quote from: Ski on February 03, 2019, 02:21:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land ...

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

I said that I could produce an approximate map

I

How do you propose to independently produce an approximate map of continental distribution based on your having measured a given distance on land?     You keep saying you can. By what means are you accomplishing this?

I think it all comes down to a preponderance of evidence at the end of the day.

To Ski's point, I can not make a map of any use any more than he can. But that doesn't mean maps don't exist. Nor does it mean, from an evidence preponderance perspective, we don't know what the distance is between SFO and Paris. I do. I've flown it, many times. The gate to gate times check out. Based upon a globe earth. The people who fly the planes use a globe earth theory/instrumentation and those of us who ride along with them rely on that.

I don't know how else to explain it, globe earth theory, in all it's roundness and such. There are so many things that are not vague about it. Chiefly all of global transport, sea and air, works. It simply works. And it's all crazily 'great circle', spherically based. If you have something better, I'm all in. But in the absence, a ball works great for everything.

When FE evolves to a point where it can say, "Whoa, drop all that 'ball' crap, and do this!" when it comes to a more and better earthwise transit of goods and humans around this place, I'll take notice. In the mean time, spherical earth seems to get me and my stuff moving around the planet quite nicely. And to deny that is, well, just slowing my next Amazon delivery.

Quote from: Ski on February 03, 2019, 02:56:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 03, 2019, 02:49:44 PM

Quote from: Ski on February 03, 2019, 02:21:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land ...

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

I said that I could produce an approximate map

I

How do you propose to independently produce an approximate map of continental distribution based on your having measured a given distance on land?     You keep saying you can. By what means are you accomplishing this?

I think it all comes down to a preponderance of evidence at the end of the day.

To Ski's point, I can not make a map of any use any more than he can. But that doesn't mean maps don't exist. Nor does it mean, from an evidence preponderance perspective, we don't know what the distance is between SFO and Paris. I do. I've flown it, many times. The gate to gate times check out. Based upon a globe earth. The people who fly the planes use a globe earth theory/instrumentation and those of us who ride along with them rely on that.

I don't know how else to explain it, globe earth theory, in all it's roundness and such. There are so many things that are not vague about it. Chiefly all of global transport, sea and air, works. It simply works. And it's all crazily 'great circle', spherically based. If you have something better, I'm all in. But in the absence, a ball works great for everything.

When FE evolves to a point where it can say, "Whoa, drop all that 'ball' crap, and do this!" when it comes to a more and better earthwise transit of goods and humans around this place, I'll take notice. In the mean time, spherical earth seems to get me and my stuff moving around the planet quite nicely. And to deny that is, well, just slowing my next Amazon delivery.

You are of course correct, it does all come down to verifiable evidence.  To use the argument that; you need to check out all your own facts before they become valid, is rather a lame one and dare I say it psychotic.  The world is a complex place and to live in it successfully one has to take a large number of things on a daily basis both on trust and for granted.

When you boarded your flight for Charles de Gaulle, think for one moment about all the things you both took for granted and put your trust in. Did you ask to see the schematics of the aircraft you flew on to check to see if the Airbus or Boeing designers got it right? Did you do a quick check on all the systems? Did you intercept the pilot and ask to see his credentials, and confirm he knew where Paris was?

You could go through a ridiculously long list of questions such as those mentioned  above of things we have to take for granted to stay sane. To say you have not personally verified a fact does not render that fact invalid, to say otherwise is just foolish.

In my opinion why FE believers like to keep things vague and avoid answering questions is it prevents them from thinking too hard about what they believe in, they would much rather spend their time nit picking on pretty irrelevant topics such as dark energy that, as far as I know has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

It I were to put up the famous photo of the pale blue dot as taken by Voyager on its epic journey, FE believers would cry fake. The irony is Ski, one of the flat earth mods, has as his avatar a sketch depicting his idea of what a flat earth looks like, with an ice wall all the way around. When  challenged on this, has he ever seen or met someone who has seen the ice wall, there is no answer. If you were to ask what surveying data set or sets was the map based on, again there would be no answer. The avatar is just a sketch based on no  more than a vague hope, which is what all their beliefs are based on.

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holy writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

they call it dark energy and dark matter because they dont know what it is but they have to call it something. likely dark cus you cant see it. according to brian cox from his awesome 2 1/2 hour interview with Joe Rogan days ago the new more popular theory is the universe is eternal, constantly expanding (cant 100% remember what he says) and every now and again itll dump a load of energy that basically explodes (big bang) and when it cools atoms can start to form etc. I thought of an example of the universe being like a vast ever expanding desert with oasis (not the band hohoho) popping up every now and again and those are what we would call our universe.

From all the planets and stuff we see in the universe ours being the only one that is flat makes absolutely zero sense. Brian Cox says if dark energy exists there not sure if its just naturally there which it could be because if we are just a part of an eternal universe its going to have some energy driving it and if it is that dark energy that is why its everywhere. Also in my mind if you could make a power source and engine that can be powered by and push on dark energy you could travel to any other micro universe to and that would be awesome.

now then the eternal expansion of the eternal universe could be the product of forming our little universes, kind of like the film The Core when they restarted the earths core they dropped off nukes  all around it and the explosions caused a wave that pushed the core around. That could be what our little micro universes are doing, big bangs that cause a wave to keep the eternal universe ever expanding. like dropping a brick in pond. chuck it in it displaces the water and forces it outwards.

For tons of future space stuff check out isaac arthu, been listening to his stuff its awesome  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g

Quote from: Ski on February 03, 2019, 09:51:20 AM

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holy writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

they call it dark energy and dark matter because they dont know what it is but they have to call it something. likely dark cus you cant see it. according to brian cox from his awesome 2 1/2 hour interview with Joe Rogan days ago the new more popular theory is the universe is eternal, constantly expanding (cant 100% remember what he says) and every now and again itll dump a load of energy that basically explodes (big bang) and when it cools atoms can start to form etc. I thought of an example of the universe being like a vast ever expanding desert with oasis (not the band hohoho) popping up every now and again and those are what we would call our universe.

From all the planets and stuff we see in the universe ours being the only one that is flat makes absolutely zero sense. Brian Cox says if dark energy exists there not sure if its just naturally there which it could be because if we are just a part of an eternal universe its going to have some energy driving it and if it is that dark energy that is why its everywhere. Also in my mind if you could make a power source and engine that can be powered by and push on dark energy you could travel to any other micro universe to and that would be awesome.

now then the eternal expansion of the eternal universe could be the product of forming our little universes, kind of like the film The Core when they restarted the earths core they dropped off nukes  all around it and the explosions caused a wave that pushed the core around. That could be what our little micro universes are doing, big bangs that cause a wave to keep the eternal universe ever expanding. like dropping a brick in pond. chuck it in it displaces the water and forces it outwards.

For tons of future space stuff check out isaac arthu, been listening to his stuff its awesome  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g

Now I’m a big fan of Dr. Cox, if you’ve not already done so go check out the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast..iTunes, BBC.....easy to find.

That aside, as has been said Dark Matter or Dark Energy is all just so much speculation that scientists can debate based on data and observation. Flat earth believers and most other folk for that matter only have pretty meaningless opinions based on no more than 2nd or ‘n’ hand opinions on what they have read, so it’s not really worthwhile discussing, unlike maps or geography which we all have some direct experience on.

The topic for discussion is FE vagness.

Now I’m a big fan of Dr. Cox, if you’ve not already done so go check out the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast..iTunes, BBC.....easy to find.

Or the 1997 Labour Party conference, where they appropriated D:Ream’s “Things Can Only Get Better” for political purposes.

 

Interesting career overall.  He’s clearly one of those people, who are irritatingly multitalented.

Quote from: Jane on February 03, 2019, 02:45:02 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 01:21:35 PM

Basically, the FE tactic seems to be that if is there is no well defined "Flat Earth Theory" the FE can never be debunked.

You act like that matters. Science tends not to give a flying duckdodgers about debunking. The death knell in science is not 'debunked,' it's 'lacks evidence.' The sooner you get your head around that, the sooner you'll hopefully stop this tediousness.

You are under no obligation to attempt debunks. The moment you attempt to, you should be doing it out of interest in what a model has to say, not the pursuit of a likely impossible disproof. Acting as though something needs to be disproven is how pseudoscience gets propagated. Thought you were against that?

Actually, it’s pretty much exactly how science works.  There’s room for flexibility in the method, but it generally boils down to:
1.  Propose a hypothesis.
2.  Make predictions based on the hypothesis.
3.  Do experiments or take measurements to test the hypothesis.
4.  Dismiss or refine hypothesis as required.
5.  Go to 1.

Although I do have a problem with the word “debunking”, which generally exists in internet discussions, not scientific literature.

Which is exactly as I said? At no point there is a hypothesis rejected because it was disproven, the option to refine is always present. Dismissing comes when there's not enough to justify the refinements you made; lacking evidence. You're assuming that the experiments and measurements taken can only have positive or negative result, when neutral is entirely possible, especially with refinements.

To reject something on scientific grounds, all you need to do is point out a lack of supporting evidence. Someone who instead decides to look for active contradictions should be doing it out of interest, not because they want to disprove something; there's no guarantee a disproof even exists, but it'd have been rejected long before then.
The kind of thought processes that lead to people demanding disproofs is how so much genuinely dangerous stuff gets taught as on par with science. Oh, it's not proven to be false... At some point people need to accept that it doesn't need to be.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 03, 2019, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 03, 2019, 02:45:02 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 01:21:35 PM

Basically, the FE tactic seems to be that if is there is no well defined "Flat Earth Theory" the FE can never be debunked.

You act like that matters. Science tends not to give a flying duckdodgers about debunking. The death knell in science is not 'debunked,' it's 'lacks evidence.' The sooner you get your head around that, the sooner you'll hopefully stop this tediousness.

You are under no obligation to attempt debunks. The moment you attempt to, you should be doing it out of interest in what a model has to say, not the pursuit of a likely impossible disproof. Acting as though something needs to be disproven is how pseudoscience gets propagated. Thought you were against that?

Actually, it’s pretty much exactly how science works.  There’s room for flexibility in the method, but it generally boils down to:
1.  Propose a hypothesis.
2.  Make predictions based on the hypothesis.
3.  Do experiments or take measurements to test the hypothesis.
4.  Dismiss or refine hypothesis as required.
5.  Go to 1.

Although I do have a problem with the word “debunking”, which generally exists in internet discussions, not scientific literature.

Which is exactly as I said? At no point there is a hypothesis rejected because it was disproven, the option to refine is always present. Dismissing comes when there's not enough to justify the refinements you made; lacking evidence. You're assuming that the experiments and measurements taken can only have positive or negative result, when neutral is entirely possible, especially with refinements.

To reject something on scientific grounds, all you need to do is point out a lack of supporting evidence. Someone who instead decides to look for active contradictions should be doing it out of interest, not because they want to disprove something; there's no guarantee a disproof even exists, but it'd have been rejected long before then.
The kind of thought processes that lead to people demanding disproofs is how so much genuinely dangerous stuff gets taught as on par with science. Oh, it's not proven to be false... At some point people need to accept that it doesn't need to be.

What you say may indeed be valid....but for clarity:
Could you give an example that related to the topic, as it might help to explain exactly where you are coming from and move the discussion on.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 04, 2019, 02:44:33 AM

Now I’m a big fan of Dr. Cox, if you’ve not already done so go check out the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast..iTunes, BBC.....easy to find.

Or the 1997 Labour Party conference, where they appropriated D:Ream’s “Things Can Only Get Better” for political purposes.

 

Interesting career overall.  He’s clearly one of those people, who are irritatingly multitalented.

I think the least said about that the better....   
:-(

Which is exactly as I said? At no point there is a hypothesis rejected because it was disproven, the option to refine is always present. Dismissing comes when there's not enough to justify the refinements you made; lacking evidence. You're assuming that the experiments and measurements taken can only have positive or negative result, when neutral is entirely possible, especially with refinements.

To reject something on scientific grounds, all you need to do is point out a lack of supporting evidence. Someone who instead decides to look for active contradictions should be doing it out of interest, not because they want to disprove something; there's no guarantee a disproof even exists, but it'd have been rejected long before then.
The kind of thought processes that lead to people demanding disproofs is how so much genuinely dangerous stuff gets taught as on par with science. Oh, it's not proven to be false... At some point people need to accept that it doesn't need to be.

Perhaps because in normal science, no hypothesis shot through with so many holes will ever get off the starting block?

I don’t assume that all results must be positive or negative, but negative results do exist, and when they happen it does far more to dismiss a theory than s neutral one, and flat earth ideas are chock full of negatives results. 

There’s a reason Samual Rowbotham not only had to reject vast swathes of established science, but the scientific process as a whole.

If flat earthers can’t address the obvious contradictions, then their ideas don’t deserve scientific consideration.  I think that’s fine with most of them though.  They seem to not really care for science, and aren’t looking to prove anything scientifically. 

If you are able to obyasnit as cats move in between the cities with an airplane speed. That I think then you will find the response to your question.

If you are able to obyasnit as cats move in between the cities with an airplane speed. That I think then you will find the response to your question.

This answer is about as good an answer as any other for the mountain of issues with FEH. 

Perhaps because in normal science, no hypothesis shot through with so many holes will ever get off the starting block?

Yes, it would, it'd make it as far as the 'refine' step. The problem is when REers deny the existence of that step.
FET's possible, anything is possible, so long as you have sufficient details to muddy the water, up to and including just including a God dedicated to tricking people. it is scientifically justifiable to reject something that is possible, simple due to lack of evidence.
That's all that's being said, it seriously shouldn't merit an argument.

Trying to insist that soem stronger standard is necessary is why pseudoscience gets spread around so easily. Starting on the grounds that refutation is required makes your position weaker, because you're likely not going to be able to address any model that's been refined. Refinement is always possible. Anyone could make a totally functioning FE model (see: trickster God), no contradictions to be found; holes in a scientific theory aren't a death knell, they're a baptism. Literally everything starts out like that, then it gets developed and refined until they vanish.
Evidence is what matters.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on February 04, 2019, 09:55:07 AM

If you are able to obyasnit as cats move in between the cities with an airplane speed. That I think then you will find the response to your question.

This answer is about as good an answer as any other for the mountain of issues with FEH.

If you want to take the subject seriously only "vague answers" about the  "mountains of issues with FEH" should be expected as the norm from the FE group for one simple reason.
It is a well known and established fact that the earth isn't flat for one simple reason.

There are many others , such as the map, or lack of one and size and distances from the earth to the moon.

And Cow Girl, you need to check your Spell Check. That word is correctly  spelled "obstinate".LOL

And seriously speaking there is really no such thing  as a "FET or FEH".
Only vague ideas.
Is the moon 100, 200, 700 or 3000 miles from the earth ?  Seems a bit vague to me.

Quote from: JCM on February 04, 2019, 10:05:58 AM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on February 04, 2019, 09:55:07 AM

If you are able to obyasnit as cats move in between the cities with an airplane speed. That I think then you will find the response to your question.

This answer is about as good an answer as any other for the mountain of issues with FEH.

If you want to take the subject seriously only "vague answers" about the  "mountains of issues with FEH" should be expected as the norm from the FE group for one simple reason.
It is a well known and established fact that the earth isn't flat for one simple reason.

There are many others , such as the map, or lack of one and size and distances from the earth to the moon.

And Cow Girl, you need to check your Spell Check. That word is correctly  spelled "obstinate".LOL

And seriously speaking there is really no such thing  as a "FET or FEH".
Only vague ideas.
Is the moon 100, 200, 700 or 3000 miles from the earth ?  Seems a bit vague to me.

I think you should check who you're replying to.

If you're just going to pick up where jimster (who is banned for a week) left off with complaints about vagueness, I can move this thread to AR along with jimster's other whiny threads. This is the debate section of the forum, not the cry about FE section of the forum.

OH, I just fixed it. I merged it with jimster's vagueness in FE topic.

But back to the topic ......vagueness in flat earth thinking.
Earlier on we were discussing Dark Energy/ Dark Matter but as no one here is an astronomer or has access to some high tech telescope, it was felt rather than talking about a subject than no one on this forum knows the slightest thing about it was felt if we were going to discuss flat earth vagueness it was better to discuss something that was at least known that enabled the original question to be answered. Ski mentioned maps and measuring distances and it was felt that was an appropriate subject to use to examine just how vague flat earth believers were. I mentioned it was a fact that it was possible to measure accurately the distance between any two points on the earth’s surface and I could support that fact with evidence. Ski who said was a lover of facts might hopefully come back with a response that will then help to gauge just how vague, if indeed they are, flat earth believers are. Till then.......

That aside, as has been said Dark Matter or Dark Energy is all just so much speculation that scientists can debate based on data and observation.

How positively vague of them. Which as we all now know is always the death of scientific thought and an attempt to avoid uncomfortable truths -- unless it conforms to your own personal bias, of course. 

Quote from: lone

That aside, as has been said Dark Matter or Dark Energy is all just so much speculation that scientists can debate based on data and observation.

How positively vague of them. Which as we all now know is always the death of scientific thought and an attempt to avoid uncomfortable truths -- unless it conforms to your own personal bias, of course. 

And what exactly do you know that is factual about either dark matter or dark energy and how did you come by this knowledge.
You mentioned earlier on how you love facts and I’m patientlty waited no for you to provide some rather than making comments on a subject that in all probability you know nothing about.

I have frequently made, or tried to make , apologies to FE's for some of my comments which they seem to find offensive.

I think the problem is that some us who work (or have worked at one time or another ) in areas - such as in the Navy, estimating distances - that we have to deal in absolutes in our every day work and this vagueness or this vagueness from FE' s give us cause to have a low opinion of. FE.

But ( another one of my big IMHO's) this is the Crux of the FE - vs - RE problem. FE's just haven't had the studies, experiences and many things in the opportunities we have had. Our big problem is that FE's just want to deny all this and will stubbornly cling to their ideas.
Probably a lot of other things to consider. But since we have put all this effort into our jobs,we just can't understand why FE's think as they do.

I don't try to get into matters of which I know nothing or very little such as this dark energy or dark matter question.
But I do try to stick to those of which I do know a few things such the horizon and the distance from the earth to the moon.
These are RE absolutes and FE vaguenesses.

Wait... Like *THE* Navy?

Wait... Like *THE* Navy?

I was using the old Navy lookouts as an example of knowing the distance to the horizon.
I have heard that some of them were very good at this.
Their estimates checked out very close to those taken from the radar.
Nothing vague about that.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 04, 2019, 05:25:40 AM

Perhaps because in normal science, no hypothesis shot through with so many holes will ever get off the starting block?

Yes, it would, it'd make it as far as the 'refine' step.

I agree in a way.  However, I think the scientific method applies broadly on two levels.  There's the internal process where an individual or group of scientists applies it to their own work.  Then there's the process of others examining the work once it's in the public domain.

When I say it wouldn't get off the starting block, I mean there's no flat earth "model" (that I'm aware of) anywhere near complete enough to be presented as a credible hypothesis for scientists to properly pick apart. 

I believe Rab's point, and the point of the topic is that flat earthers (at least most who post here) seem happy to leave it at that stage.  Where everything is just a "possibility", and no one even seems willing to start eliminating ideas that don't work.

This should be something any serious flat earther should be doing anyway.  Ideally long before they post "da troof" on youtube and alleging massive conspiracies.

The problem is when REers deny the existence of that step.

Strongly disagree. The reason I joined is because I was interested to see if flat earthers were willing or able to refine their ideas when presented with internal contradictions or observations that don't match the hypothesis.  I believe others may be here for similar reasons.

As flat eartherism is more a community effort than an organised group of researchers, it actually needs people like Rab to say "hang on, this idea doesn't match these observations", or "this part of it directly contradicts another"  He should be viewed as a valued resource for providing checks against real astronomical and other observations.  He gives clear, concise explanations, and answers every question thrown at him, and should not just be dismissed as an "angry globularist". 

Somebody has to do it.  Provided of course that flat earthers are even interested in finding a hypothesis that works.  And of that, I'm honestly not sure.

FET's possible, anything is possible, so long as you have sufficient details to muddy the water, up to and including just including a God dedicated to tricking people. it is scientifically justifiable to reject something that is possible, simple due to lack of evidence.
That's all that's being said, it seriously shouldn't merit an argument.

God tricking people seems to me the most plausible FE explanation.  I've mentioned before that so many as yet unexplained principles and parameters need to line up to exactly match the far simpler heliocentric model and what we see, it implies everything was deliberately designed to make us think the heliocentric model is correct.  I've never had a FE response to that though.

It's a point that would eventually need to be addressed though.  In other words, if flat earthers could eventually come up with working model, we still need to answer the question "so, why does the heliocentric model still work?"

Trying to insist that soem stronger standard is necessary is why pseudoscience gets spread around so easily. Starting on the grounds that refutation is required makes your position weaker, because you're likely not going to be able to address any model that's been refined. Refinement is always possible. Anyone could make a totally functioning FE model (see: trickster God), no contradictions to be found; holes in a scientific theory aren't a death knell, they're a baptism. Literally everything starts out like that, then it gets developed and refined until they vanish.
Evidence is what matters.

I really don't understand what you mean by this.  Evidence that directly contradicts a hypothesis must be a stronger argument to dismiss or change it, than lack of supporting evidence.

I can't imagine how this is insisting on a stronger standard or leads to pseudoscience.

I have no quarrel with facts. I love facts. Even when the fact is "I don't know".

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

How does universal expansion (if true) accelerate, Rab?
Why do observed galaxy rotation rates diverge from the expected under GR?
How does a young earth sustain liquid oceans if modern theories of stellar evolution hold true?
How old is the earth/sun anyway?


Go on. Quote some scripture for us.

I can explain an RE sunset.  Can you explain an FE sunset?  Which explanation do you think will be simpler and make more sense?