Vagueness in FE

The reason Rab gets dismissed is because there are responses, and not only that but he knows there are responses. He’s been involved in discussions on everything he throws out several times over, and he never takes the time to refine his points so that they are actually relevant. The same principle generally applies.
The main reason you won’t find FEers upending their whole models in response to your typical stock argument is that they don’t need to. They already have. The problem is that the answers are non-trivial. And of course, not necessarily successful, but showing that takes a refinement of the argument which never actually seems to happen. Most users here, especially Rab, revel in ignorance. They actively misrepresent or ignore the answers they’ve seen, and then there are the typical angry noobs who only come here to post a proposed disproof and get mad when it turns out it didn’t work. There’s a guy that mutilated suvat that comes to mind.

FEers don’t explain their whole models in depth at the drop of a hat. You can hardly blame them; it’s a lot of work just to go ignored because people stick to the same stick arguments.

The reason users like Rab think it’s stuck at possibility while FEers think otherwise is because he persistently refuses to acknowledge the myriad discussions he’s already had. From an FE perspective, REers are trailing at their heels. That’s why I say any attempt at a disproof should be done out of genuine interest in a model, otherwise it’s a waste of time. The actual responses, whether or not they work, would have to be understood and responded to, not just blithely misrepresented or ignored, and of course it’d need to be an environment where it was actually worth giving. There are a few users who just get scrolled past by most people, not because their questions are too tough, but because they’re way too obnoxious to bother even trying for a discussion with. The problem is people taking that as an issue with FEers than with the person they’re expected to waste time on.

And again, it’s all unnecessary. Users like Rab that are explicitly here just to make people reject FET should be more concerned just with asking for evidence, and ideally getting enough of an understanding for a model so that they’ll even know what that would look like. Half-hearted attempts at disproofs only serve to make REers look desperate and encourage the false notion that something has to be disproven to be rejected, which just isn’t the case. That latter point is how the legitimately dangerous ideas tend to get spread.

The reason Rab gets dismissed is because there are responses, and not only that but he knows there are responses.

Do you mean vague hand wavey responses, or anything substantial?

Because I read a lot of threads here and elsewhere, read quite a bit of Rowbotham and searched the internet, and it pretty much all seems to fall under the former category.

If you know any resources I may not be aware of, a link would be appreciated.

He’s been involved in discussions on everything he throws out several times over, and he never takes the time to refine his points so that they are actually relevant. The same principle generally applies.

I disagree, he seems to be one of the more consistently on topic posters here.  I could name a few flat earthers who constantly derail threads to talk about their personal favorite topics, and never seen you complain about them.  You could at least be even handed.

The main reason you won’t find FEers upending their whole models in response to your typical stock argument is that they don’t need to.

What do you mean by “stock argument”?

If you mean the standard accepted reason given by regular science, then this is exactly what any flat earth model must be compared to.

The problem is that the answers are non-trivial.

Yet I can’t find any non trivial answers. 

And of course, not necessarily successful, but showing that takes a refinement of the argument which never actually seems to happen.

It might help if we were given something to work with.

Most users here, especially Rab, revel in ignorance. They actively misrepresent or ignore the answers they’ve seen,

I see no evidence of that.  What I do see I people refuting flat earth explanations when they contradict basic physics where that physics is shown to work in numerous other applications. 

And I agree.  If a flat earth explanation means arbitrarily dismissing the basic principles that the entire world’s technology is based on, then that’s a cold hard no from me.

and then there are the typical angry noobs who only come here to post a proposed disproof and get mad when it turns out it didn’t work. There’s a guy that mutilated suvat that comes to mind.

Right.  The word angry gets thrown around here a lot.  Even if you really knew what someone was feeling, it’s completely irrelevant.  Personal attacks should have no place in the discussion.

FEers don’t explain their whole models in depth at the drop of a hat. You can hardly blame them; it’s a lot of work just to go ignored because people stick to the same stick arguments.

Again if in depth arguments are actually available anywhere, a quick link should suffice.  Yet we don’t even get that.

Are you absolutely sure flat earthers have “whole models”?

The reason users like Rab think it’s stuck at possibility while FEers think otherwise is because he persistently refuses to acknowledge the myriad discussions he’s already had. From an FE perspective, REers are trailing at their heels. That’s why I say any attempt at a disproof should be done out of genuine interest in a model, otherwise it’s a waste of time.

Again you are making assumptions about people’s state of mind, and again it’s irrelevant.  Also genuine interest can obviously include asking difficult questions.

The actual responses, whether or not they work, would have to be understood and responded to, not just blithely misrepresented or ignored, and of course it’d need to be an environment where it was actually worth giving. There are a few users who just get scrolled past by most people, not because their questions are too tough, but because they’re way too obnoxious to bother even trying for a discussion with. The problem is people taking that as an issue with FEers than with the person they’re expected to waste time on.

More personal attack.  Skip.

And again, it’s all unnecessary. Users like Rab that are explicitly here just to make people reject FET should be more concerned just with asking for evidence, and ideally getting enough of an understanding for a model so that they’ll even know what that would look like. Half-hearted attempts at disproofs only serve to make REers look desperate and encourage the false notion that something has to be disproven to be rejected, which just isn’t the case.

Plenty of people ask for evidence all the time, and none is presented.

Also how are we supposed to ask for evidence of a particular aspect of a flat earth “model”, when we don’t even know what “model” we should be looking at.

Which of course is the whole point of the thread.

That latter point is how the legitimately dangerous ideas tend to get spread.

You keep hinting at this, but I can’t think of any time where asking for detailed scientific explanation has lead to dangerous ideas spreading. 

I’m going to need an example of this.

Well that was a waste of time.
Don't confuse 'personal attack' with 'straight up description of experience,' and stop outright ignoring everything someone has to say.

Again, FET can safely be rejected by lack of evidence. Asking 'difficult questions' is unnecessary, and should only be done if you are actually interested in the answers and how it could work; you can talk a lot about not knowing someone's mind, but the way they act says plenty. Like you, conflating 'asking difficult questions' with 'insisting something needs to be refuted in order to be rejected,' which are fundamentally different statements. That tells me you either don't care about making an honest argument, or you're more concerned with scoring points, and neither is particularly encouraging. Maybe that's wrong, sure, but with how many threads there are on this site and how many discussions someone could be having, why would anyone dwell on someone that gives that impression?

Once more, when my posts mentioned pseudoscience being perpetuated, it was, again, because of the implication that a lack of evidence is insufficient reason to reject something. Disproofs are basically non-existent as far as science goes because refinement is always possible, special situations can always be proposed; someone can always reply with "Well there's  no evidence it doesn't," because not everything has been tested with a high degree of rigour.

And you haven't tried debating with Rab. Ask literally anyone who has. He's rarely on-topic, more often he changes the topic and blames you for it when you engage with what he said, and he never develops a point. When my post mentions stock arguments, it means the basic questions and nothing more. it means people who can repeat the basic "What about star trails?" and "What causes gravity?" and then can't engage with any of the responses because they aren't willing to put any effort in. Stock questions are just that; stock, things that anyone can pull out and repeat without really knowing what they're asking, and as such not actually be able to have a discussion based on them.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612
There's one person's model. That's how much would need to be explained for something as basic as the force that keeps us down. Wanting all that to be regurgitated whenever is a bit absurd, especially when providing the link wouldn't help discussion, it would lead to someone doing a line by line mutilation, intentionally taking the worst possible interpretation of each line and yanking it out of context regardless to act like they're responding to the model, when all they're doing is being ridiculous. That's what happens, more often than not.

if all you want to do is refute FET, stick to asking about evidence. if you want to ask after disproofs, come at it through the lens of trying to make it work, trying to piece together what people say; that's how science works. The same reason scientists try to found counter-evidence to what they're trying to prove, something isn't disproven until you give it every chance to work. if you're not interested in doing that then don't bother.

Well that was a waste of time.

What, because I disagree with you?  I thought you were interested in debate?

Don't confuse 'personal attack' with 'straight up description of experience,'

That seems to be a matter of opinion.  Whatever.  I don’t really like speculating on other people’s motives, so I’ll stop on this point now.

and stop outright ignoring everything someone has to say.

I haven’t ignored you, I just disagreed with you in places, and asked for clarification where I didn’t get your point.

Again, FET can safely be rejected by lack of evidence.  Asking 'difficult questions' is unnecessary, and should only be done if you are actually interested in the answers and how it could work;

There’s more than one way to debate, and it can depend on what you’re interested in.  I’m here to debate with flat earthers because I’m genuinely interested in the flat earth “movement”.  This has as much to do with trying to understand the people as it does the ideas.

I’ll get back to the evidence thing in a mo.

you can talk a lot about not knowing someone's mind, but the way they act says plenty. Like you, conflating 'asking difficult questions' with 'insisting something needs to be refuted in order to be rejected,' which are fundamentally different statements. That tells me you either don't care about making an honest argument, or you're more concerned with scoring points, and neither is particularly encouraging.

Not knowing someone’s mind confirmed. 

Maybe that's wrong, sure, but with how many threads there are on this site and how many discussions someone could be having, why would anyone dwell on someone that gives that impression?

How about giving people the benefit of the doubt and just addressing the points they make?

Incidentally, if someone makes make a valid argument, it doesn’t really matter if they are “trying to score points” or not. 

Once more, when my posts mentioned pseudoscience being perpetuated, it was, again, because of the implication that a lack of evidence is insufficient reason to reject something. Disproofs are basically non-existent as far as science goes because refinement is always possible, special situations can always be proposed; someone can always reply with "Well there's  no evidence it doesn't," because not everything has been tested with a high degree of rigour.

Ok, got it now.  Thanks.  Although I still don’t agree.

In regular science, theoretical physicists work entirely with maths and abstract ideas.  Hypotheses can be considered sound without actual evidence for decades and then be validated (or not).

Einstein and Hawking were both theoretical physicists, and I wouldn’t call either pseudoscientists.

It’s perfectly normal to form a hypothesis first, and test it second.  Sometimes a hypothesis can’t be tested with current technology and a bigger/better telescope or particle accelerators is required.  There’s nothing wrong with this.

Also if lack of evidence is all that’s taken into consideration, then the alleged pseudoscientist can just say “well there’s no evidence against it”.  So when there is evidence against something, why the hell not point it out?

And you haven't tried debating with Rab. Ask literally anyone who has. He's rarely on-topic, more often he changes the topic and blames you for it when you engage with what he said, and he never develops a point. When my post mentions stock arguments, it means the basic questions and nothing more. it means people who can repeat the basic "What about star trails?" and "What causes gravity?" and then can't engage with any of the responses because they aren't willing to put any effort in. Stock questions are just that; stock, things that anyone can pull out and repeat without really knowing what they're asking, and as such not actually be able to have a discussion based on them.

Well I’ve never seen a good answer to the star trails thing either. 

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612
There's one person's model. That's how much would need to be explained for something as basic as the force that keeps us down. Wanting all that to be regurgitated whenever is a bit absurd, especially when providing the link wouldn't help discussion, it would lead to someone doing a line by line mutilation, intentionally taking the worst possible interpretation of each line and yanking it out of context regardless to act like they're responding to the model, when all they're doing is being ridiculous. That's what happens, more often than not.

Thanks.  I’m aware of Sandokhan's ideas.  But that seems to be his own thing and not really representative of flat earthers in general.  As I say, I’m interested in the “movement” as a whole.

Odd you mention him though, as he does regurgitate it.  All over other unrelated topics. 

if all you want to do is refute FET, stick to asking about evidence. if you want to ask after disproofs, come at it through the lens of trying to make it work, trying to piece together what people say; that's how science works. The same reason scientists try to found counter-evidence to what they're trying to prove, something isn't disproven until you give it every chance to work. if you're not interested in doing that then don't bother.

Think I’ll debate how I see fit, thanks.  I don’t accept that your rules of conduct are any more valid than mine.

So...just how vague are flat earth believers? Its difficult to tell because not one has put forward a view on which an answerer can be based. The original question still remains unanswered even after thousands of words that all skirt around all sorts of edges and issues and all end up saying nothing in relation to the original question.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt when there are as many people and more doubts is just not practical.
The fact is, oftentimes if someone doesn't understand one explanation and it's been given in a fair bit of detail, they're either not really trying, or they have a different approach, the latter seeming to be our trouble. Engaging with the former is a waste of time, engaging with the latter is exhausting to try and bridge the gap, and look at how many posts get addressed to any single FEer in a thread. it seriously mounts up, there's a reason most people who've ever countered bad RE arguments dedicate most of their time to the lower forums. it is exhausting to go over things, especially when they're the same things you've gone over time and time again.

Not sure why you brought up theoretical physics. Every model starts off as a hypothesis, but no one tries to do anything concrete with it until there's actually evidence for it. The most they do is a test. No one built a jet plane before they'd tested engines and aerodynamics. Pseudoscience is where you take something unjustified and claim that it is. That's not how hypotheses are used in science. At all.
The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that no one expects you to believe in a hypothesis. They do expect you to believe, and act according to, pseudoscience.
Equally not sure why you mentioned Sandokhan, that wasn't the post linked. though on him, yep, he does copy/paste parts of his model which is the only practical way to repeat anything remotely that complex on a wider scale, and look at your reaction to him doing so. it's almost like your expectations are thoroughly unreasonable.

Star trails, celestial gears are the main answer, DET's probably the best. if you've never seen an answer, that says more about the inane number of times the stock argument gets repeated than it does FET; repeating answers get exhausting, having the exact same debates is wearying especially when it's with the same people not even acknowledging that you and they have been over it before, and it still gets spammed leaving the search feature unusable.

An eminent flat earth poster earlier on in this discussion mentioned that he loved facts. I was waiting possibly along with others to be presented with a flood of flat earth facts on some relevant topic or topics that would allow a debate on the original question. To date none have been presented and the debate has somewhat stalled and has been sidelined well off topic, which is ; Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

I would have to disagree and I will explain why.

Any proposal that claims to be valid and demands to be taken seriously must be underpinned by a verified knowledge base. By that I mean that an unsubstantiated belief from left field that arrives out of nowhere with no supporting knowledge base that also contradicts proven ideas that have been confirmed by both observation and experimentation must be viewed with suspicion.

If you required a Scan in an MRI machine I would imagine that you would expect a machine to be used that was designed and manufactured according to  proven and accepted principles and not by some random unproven whim.

The same is true of any idea regardless of the topic.  Could you take seriously someone who had an idea about the sun, for example, who had not made a study of the subject that included a lengthy period of observations coupled with an investigation into the most recent research?

Some people, for their own reasons, wish to place any debate on flat earth topics outside of the normal rules of the evaluation of ideas. Just as I would balk at the idea of being given a scan using a suspect homemade MRI machine, I also baulk at an idea put forward that has no scientific credibility.

Every idea regardless has to be judged on its merits, without exceptions. It’s when flat earth beliefs call for special exemptions that the whole vagueness question arises.

Every idea regardless has to be judged on its merits, without exceptions. It’s when flat earth beliefs call for special exemptions that the whole vagueness question arises.

So you're not asking about vagueness, you're asking about evidence?

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt when there are as many people and more doubts is just not practical.
The fact is, oftentimes if someone doesn't understand one explanation and it's been given in a fair bit of detail, they're either not really trying, or they have a different approach, the latter seeming to be our trouble. Engaging with the former is a waste of time, engaging with the latter is exhausting to try and bridge the gap, and look at how many posts get addressed to any single FEer in a thread. it seriously mounts up, there's a reason most people who've ever countered bad RE arguments dedicate most of their time to the lower forums. it is exhausting to go over things, especially when they're the same things you've gone over time and time again.

Sure, I appreciate flat earthers are outnumbered. Although I do see round earthers answering noob questions, especially if there's been a misconception.  I've done it a couple of times, myself, though probably not as much as I should.

Not sure why you brought up theoretical physics. Every model starts off as a hypothesis, but no one tries to do anything concrete with it until there's actually evidence for it. The most they do is a test. No one built a jet plane before they'd tested engines and aerodynamics. Pseudoscience is where you take something unjustified and claim that it is. That's not how hypotheses are used in science. At all.

And no one is doing anything with flat earth "theory" either.  But that's OK.  There's nothing wrong with it being a hypothesis.

The main problem with it is there's a frankly enormous amount of evidence for the heliocentric model.  That and it requires a vast global (whatever) conspiracy.

The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that no one expects you to believe in a hypothesis. They do expect you to believe, and act according to, pseudoscience.

Well, "they" can get stuffed then.

Equally not sure why you mentioned Sandokhan, that wasn't the post linked. though on him, yep, he does copy/paste parts of his model which is the only practical way to repeat anything remotely that complex on a wider scale, and look at your reaction to him doing so. it's almost like your expectations are thoroughly unreasonable.

Because that's where the page opened on my phone.  Now I'm at my computer, I see (I think) you meant Den Pressure.  Yeah, I followed that topic a bit.  Again, it seems a one (maybe two?) man effort rather than any widely held belief.  I won't go into it now.

As for Sandokhan, I didn't say anything about his use of copy/paste (are you confusing me with dutchy?).  I mentioned his habit of bringing up his ideas (eg. Sagnac effect) out of the blue in unrelated topics.  And I even did a smiley face to show it was just a lighthearted dig.  I don't think that's being too unreasonable.

Star trails, celestial gears are the main answer, DET's probably the best. if you've never seen an answer, that says more about the inane number of times the stock argument gets repeated than it does FET; repeating answers get exhausting, having the exact same debates is wearying especially when it's with the same people not even acknowledging that you and they have been over it before, and it still gets spammed leaving the search feature unusable.

Right.  As I said, I've never seen a good answer to the star trails thing.

Anyway, I can see this is just going to go round and round, so I'll stop now.  Until next time.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:38:11 PM

Every idea regardless has to be judged on its merits, without exceptions. It’s when flat earth beliefs call for special exemptions that the whole vagueness question arises.

So you're not asking about vagueness, you're asking about evidence?

No. Think about it. What is vagueness based on? It’s not an entity in itself it’s rather a result of something being missing.

If someone gives you a reply to a question that you concider to be vague, what do you think is lacking in the reply for you to label it vague?

It’s not what they say, it’s more to do with what they omit.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?

Quote from: Jane on February 05, 2019, 03:06:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?

You clearly have an answer in mind, why not share it?

Being vague is often quite simple to determine. If an idea is lacking in sufficient detail to fully explain how it works or functions then is can be said to be vague. From what I’ve seen presented on this site that purport to be flat earth ideas about how the natural world works, I can honestly say compared to conventional explanations of the same aspects of the natural world, flat earth ideas are completely vague and lack any real detail. They often only give rudimentary and superficial explanations. I think that’s what the original poster was trying to establish. But as is often the case threads are taken off track often by spurious comments than don’t relate to the original question.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 05, 2019, 03:58:11 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 05, 2019, 03:06:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?

You clearly have an answer in mind, why not share it?

You first.
You were asked two clear questions, why not answer them?
Here they are again: "How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?"

Quote from: Jane on February 05, 2019, 04:12:47 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 05, 2019, 03:58:11 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 05, 2019, 03:06:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?

You clearly have an answer in mind, why not share it?

You first.
You were asked two clear questions, why not answer them?
Here they are again: "How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?"

Why would I act like I’ve never spoken to Inquisitive before? He pops by, asks a vague question with little to no relevance, then vanishes and never actually contributes anything.

The first steps are constructing a hypothesis and forming predictions, if you’re going from scratch. We’re not going from scratch. We have an established model. See if there are flaws, see if an alternative is better with respect to explaining more or assuming less. This is pretty basic stuff.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 06, 2019, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: Jane on February 05, 2019, 04:12:47 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 05, 2019, 03:58:11 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 05, 2019, 03:06:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 05, 2019, 03:05:01 PM

Is there vagueness in flat earth thinking?

On an individual level, no. On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models. is there any significance to the question?

How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?

You clearly have an answer in mind, why not share it?

You first.
You were asked two clear questions, why not answer them?
Here they are again: "How do you determine the correct model for the shape and size of the earth?  What are the first steps?"

Why would I act like I’ve never spoken to Inquisitive before? He pops by, asks a vague question with little to no relevance, then vanishes and never actually contributes anything.

The first steps are constructing a hypothesis and forming predictions, if you’re going from scratch. We’re not going from scratch. We have an established model. See if there are flaws, see if an alternative is better with respect to explaining more or assuming less. This is pretty basic stuff.

You have a model?  You said 'On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models.'.

What, exactly, is the model?  Which must have an accurate, verified, map because that is what the shape of the earth is all about.

The first steps are constructing a hypothesis and forming predictions, if you’re going from scratch. We’re not going from scratch. We have an established model.

Ah, but it isn't the zetetic way of doing things, is it?  Things like hypotheses, predictions and working from established models lead to confirmation bias.

See if there are flaws, see if an alternative is better with respect to explaining more or assuming less. This is pretty basic stuff.

Thing is that we keep pointing out flaws in FET and propose RET as a better alternative, but that doesn't ever seem to go anywhere.

As is usual for these discussion they are becoming vague and are straying from the topic which is ironically Vagueness in Flat Earth ideas and thinking. To date no flat earth ideas have been put forward, all there has been is a fairly tedious argument in semantics over who said what when and why they said it. No attempt has been made to date of any flat earth thinker nailing their colours to the mast and putting forth their ideas.

You have a model?  You said 'On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models.'.

What, exactly, is the model?  Which must have an accurate, verified, map because that is what the shape of the earth is all about.

Why would I have a model? I'm not a FEer. If you are just going to deny the existence of people like JRowe and Scepti and Sandokhan who explicitly give models, that's your problem, not mine.
Are you seriously dragging the map argument into this thread? Pretty sure it's been done to death multiple times. It's also not synonymous with a model of al the physical laws required, but whatever. if you want a map go check out the non-Euclidean FE model.

Quote from: Jane on February 06, 2019, 03:28:15 AM

The first steps are constructing a hypothesis and forming predictions, if you’re going from scratch. We’re not going from scratch. We have an established model.

Ah, but it isn't the zetetic way of doing things, is it?  Things like hypotheses, predictions and working from established models lead to confirmation bias.

I've seen more REers talk about the zetetic way of doing things than I have FEers. But even in the zetetic case, that's just an element of how you build the hypothesis. If it doesn't match some other aspect of reality (the prediction step) then you try something else.
As for established model, the zetetic approach is about arriving at an established model. I just brought it up as an example of comparison, and it doesn't work unless you include the rest of the quote:

Quote from: Jane on February 06, 2019, 03:28:15 AM

See if there are flaws, see if an alternative is better with respect to explaining more or assuming less. This is pretty basic stuff.

Thing is that we keep pointing out flaws in FET and propose RET as a better alternative, but that doesn't ever seem to go anywhere.

The problem there's that most REers do a bloody terrible job of it. Instead of pointing out flaws in FET, they point out flaws and ignore the explanations FEers have been giving for years at this point. It's still a regular occurence for noobs to say UA means the Earth should reach the speed of light, the 'other things are round so the Earth must be!' still makes the rounds, even defended by some regulars (though a couple do so via turning it into a completely different argument), broken records like Inquisitive and Rab can't take any discussion beyond the first two stages and either vanish only to return later and ask the same questions they've already had answered, or just repeat themselves endlessly.
Pointing out the flaws in FET only works if, when an actual FE model is presented, it is demonstrated how those flaws apply to it. Instead you have people still insisting denpressure can't explain the vertical bias, that DET involves teleportation; to anyone that actually takes the time to learn the models those statements are fundamentally absurd, and basing arguments on such things only serves to make RET look weaker. It doesn't go anywhere because most REers just repeat stock arguments, the first two or three posts of a debate, while FEers have already had all those discussions and responded to them way back. It is possible to argue poorly for the correct position, it is possible to argue well for an incorrect one, it just comes down to your ability to engage with what has been said rather than repeat a few things by rote.

Look at LoneGranger's posting in this thread for a perfect example. That's how most REers look. How convinced would you be by that?

Quote from: inquisitive on February 06, 2019, 04:48:36 AM

You have a model?  You said 'On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models.'.

What, exactly, is the model?  Which must have an accurate, verified, map because that is what the shape of the earth is all about.

Why would I have a model? I'm not a FEer. If you are just going to deny the existence of people like JRowe and Scepti and Sandokhan who explicitly give models, that's your problem, not mine.
Are you seriously dragging the map argument into this thread? Pretty sure it's been done to death multiple times. It's also not synonymous with a model of al the physical laws required, but whatever. if you want a map go check out the non-Euclidean FE model.

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2019, 06:26:09 AM

Quote from: Jane on February 06, 2019, 03:28:15 AM

The first steps are constructing a hypothesis and forming predictions, if you’re going from scratch. We’re not going from scratch. We have an established model.

Ah, but it isn't the zetetic way of doing things, is it?  Things like hypotheses, predictions and working from established models lead to confirmation bias.

I've seen more REers talk about the zetetic way of doing things than I have FEers. But even in the zetetic case, that's just an element of how you build the hypothesis. If it doesn't match some other aspect of reality (the prediction step) then you try something else.
As for established model, the zetetic approach is about arriving at an established model. I just brought it up as an example of comparison, and it doesn't work unless you include the rest of the quote:

Quote

Quote from: Jane on February 06, 2019, 03:28:15 AM

See if there are flaws, see if an alternative is better with respect to explaining more or assuming less. This is pretty basic stuff.

Thing is that we keep pointing out flaws in FET and propose RET as a better alternative, but that doesn't ever seem to go anywhere.

The problem there's that most REers do a bloody terrible job of it. Instead of pointing out flaws in FET, they point out flaws and ignore the explanations FEers have been giving for years at this point. It's still a regular occurence for noobs to say UA means the Earth should reach the speed of light, the 'other things are round so the Earth must be!' still makes the rounds, even defended by some regulars (though a couple do so via turning it into a completely different argument), broken records like Inquisitive and Rab can't take any discussion beyond the first two stages and either vanish only to return later and ask the same questions they've already had answered, or just repeat themselves endlessly.
Pointing out the flaws in FET only works if, when an actual FE model is presented, it is demonstrated how those flaws apply to it. Instead you have people still insisting denpressure can't explain the vertical bias, that DET involves teleportation; to anyone that actually takes the time to learn the models those statements are fundamentally absurd, and basing arguments on such things only serves to make RET look weaker. It doesn't go anywhere because most REers just repeat stock arguments, the first two or three posts of a debate, while FEers have already had all those discussions and responded to them way back. It is possible to argue poorly for the correct position, it is possible to argue well for an incorrect one, it just comes down to your ability to engage with what has been said rather than repeat a few things by rote.

Look at LoneGranger's posting in this thread for a perfect example. That's how most REers look. How convinced would you be by that?

And what would you say is the problems with my posts?

In response I think your logic is seriously flawed in the way in which you give special dispensation for a range various of flat earth ideas.

I tried to point our earlier than any idea, and it need not be a flat earth idea needs details both to support and explain it. For example if someone said they had developed a cure for the common cold, insisted it worked by a method and mechanism alien to both chemistry and biology  as is currently understood do you think the FDA should accept it at face value or ask for a thorough examination of the drug and and investigation into the claims surrounding it?

In not just blindly accepting this new wonder drug, and being suspicious about the claims it makes, in no way invalidates or weakens the case for either the underlying principles of chemistry or biology. The same is the case for both DET and denpressure.

The fact that every heat engine since the beginning of the industrial revolution works as predicted and in a known way makes denpressure impossible. Anyone who knows and understands thermodynamics in relation to heat engines understands all the claims made by denpressure are false. Simply put it’s not the way the world works. If denpressure were correct, no heat engine ever made would function! It’s as simple as that. It’s very similar to the user who claims Pi is wrong! Should we give him the benifit of the doubt? Or does common sense kick in? How could Pi be wrong wher every piston and engine block in the world along with billions of other mechanisms were designed then machined or cast based on that value, and every thing works. Would the same be true if Pew, or whatever were correct?

You keep saying people should take the time to find out about these FE ideas! I would argue they have. As far as DET is concerned I’ve read through it and disagree totally with what JRowe proposed based on the flaws in his idea as it made no sense whatsoever, just like phew, and denpressure.

Next time you jump on any vehicle with an internal combustion engine or even flick a switch in your home is proof that denpressure is false. Why? If you know and understand the science of how steam turbines work and internal combustion engines work you soon realise that denpressure is false. If you read any of Sceptimatic’s explanations you will quickly realise he does not understand basic scientific principles. Principles that are demonstrated to be correct by the way in which our technological world works. Sceptimatic claims there is no such thing as a vacuum! I’ve been in Industrial facilities where large vacuum chambers are used routinely in various industrial processes. Do you still imagine he is making a valid point in his denial of the existance of vacuums?

You are critical of how I present my arguments so answer this, where do you draw the line on accepting ideas put forward for consideration. Will you willingly accept any idea for consideration or do they have to meet some criteria? If so what is your criteria?

I tried to point our earlier than any idea, and it need not be a flat earth idea needs details both to support and explain it. For example if someone said they had developed a cure for the common cold, insisted it worked by a method and mechanism alien to both chemistry and biology  as is currently understood do you think the FDA should accept it at face value or ask for a thorough examination of the drug and and investigation into the claims surrounding it?

In not just blindly accepting this new wonder drug, and being suspicious about the claims it makes, in no way invalidates or weakens the case for either the underlying principles of chemistry or biology. The same is the case for both DET and denpressure.

You realise this is exactly what I'm saying, don't you? You take a step back and ask them for evidence.
You wouldn't be expected to go into a detailed chemical analysis to determine if it could even have an effect on the human body, let alone the common cold, because at the end of all that you're not left with an answer, you're left with "Oh, it's possible, but not confirmed." So you don't do that unless you're interested in that stuff, you just sit down, say "Ok, where's your justification?" and wait.

When you try to take it further than that, that's when I call you out for bad arguments. You don't get to make claims about a model, but act like you're only asking for the evidence. The two have very different requirements.

No one's saying you should take the time to learn about the ideas except for you. When you start making claims about then, when you start talking about what they contain, then you'd better know what you're talking about or you're just making RET look desperate. But that's on you, you're under no obligation to do any of that. All you need to do, to achieve your stated goal, is three words. "Where's the evidence?"
If instead you want to go the disproof tack, then learning what the hell you're on about is not 'blind acceptance,' it's the most basic step of making an argument.

Take your pick of what you want to do.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 06, 2019, 04:48:36 AM

You have a model?  You said 'On a movement-wide level, yes, there are a variety of models.'.

What, exactly, is the model?  Which must have an accurate, verified, map because that is what the shape of the earth is all about.

Why would I have a model? I'm not a FEer. If you are just going to deny the existence of people like JRowe and Scepti and Sandokhan who explicitly give models, that's your problem, not mine.
Are you seriously dragging the map argument into this thread? Pretty sure it's been done to death multiple times. It's also not synonymous with a model of al the physical laws required, but whatever. if you want a map go check out the non-Euclidean FE model.

I think you are doing a wonderful job of demonstrating the "Vagueness in FE".
To simply point to a different model to explain some observation is part of the "Vagueness in FE".
You say "if you want a map go check out the non-Euclidean FE model" but where is the "non-Euclidean FE model" described in enough detail to show a map anyway? Look at what John Davis says in:

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are there any ways to go off the edge? « on: February 01, 2019, 06:35:57 AM »
There is no end to the earth; it is an infinite plane or a closed non-euclidean surface.

One way to interpret that is that the surface of the Globe can be looked on as "a closed non-euclidean surface" and so a projection of the Globe can be look on as a flat map of the earth but that is not a "flat earth map".

I'll refrain from commenting on Zetecism as no-one seems to follow it anyway.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: Jane on February 06, 2019, 03:28:15 AM

See if there are flaws, see if an alternative is better with respect to explaining more or assuming less. This is pretty basic stuff.

Thing is that we keep pointing out flaws in FET and propose RET as a better alternative, but that doesn't ever seem to go anywhere.

The problem there's that most REers do a bloody terrible job of it. Instead of pointing out flaws in FET, they point out flaws and ignore the explanations FEers have been giving for years at this point.

The big problem is that there seems to no common ground at to the "rules" or physical laws as to the behaviour of objects and light.
REers assume, for example, Newton's Laws yet, to my knowledge, no flat-earther, accepts all of even Newton's Laws and many seem to reject even the "Laws of Motion".
John Davis in his infinite plane model seems to accept Newtonian Gravitation and uses it in the calculations yet in other places seems to ridicule it.
And when observations about the sun or moon's position are raised some distorted version of "perspective" and "bendy light" are often brought up.

Without going into further detail, it is a case of the two sides trying to debate without even a common language and this is especially so with sceptimatic.
Then JRoweSkeptic (was he real and was his DET a real theory anyway?) just assumed whatever properties of aether he needed to make his theory work.

There is no way to even debate with people like that because it gets like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:
        “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
I tried to find what Sceppy meant by certain well-defined words and his meanings in many cases are nothing like the accepted meanings.

It's still a regular occurence for noobs to say UA means the Earth should reach the speed of light, the 'other things are round so the Earth must be!' still makes the rounds, even defended by some regulars

Yes they are problems and I do try to correct those when I see them.

I'll not comment on your next bit other than to say:
You always come along and say that such and such model explains "that" as though a different FE model is needed to explain each different problem.

If the earth is flat there must be some consistent model but there is no consistent model!

Instead you have people still insisting denpressure can't explain the vertical bias, that DET involves teleportation; to anyone that actually takes the time to learn the models those statements are fundamentally absurd, and basing arguments on such things only serves to make RET look weaker. It doesn't go anywhere because most REers just repeat stock arguments, the first two or three posts of a debate, while FEers have already had all those discussions and responded to them way back. It is possible to argue poorly for the correct position, it is possible to argue well for an incorrect one, it just comes down to your ability to engage with what has been said rather than repeat a few things by rote.

What is needed is some common "language" that can be used in these debates.

FEers seem able to propose an explanation based purely hypothesis and you accept that as "an explanation" but we do not.
For the explanation to be feasible that hypothesis must be justified either by evidence or accepted "theory".

So how do we find this "common language" and these "rules" that FE models must adhere to for them to be classed as feasible?

The big problem is that there seems to no common ground at to the "rules" or physical laws as to the behaviour of objects and light.

Then don't make arguments based on them or, if you do, ensure it does actually apply to at least some of them. This isn't rocket science.

Sure, they use different underlying principles, different terminology, sometimes different from user to user. Learn them, or don't act like you're using them. What is complicated here?

So how do we find this "common language" and these "rules" that FE models must adhere to for them to be classed as feasible?

It's called reading. You like to regularly quote a block of text where Scepti explained his definitions. Why not apply them? Why not try understanding them?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 06, 2019, 04:43:39 PM

The big problem is that there seems to no common ground at to the "rules" or physical laws as to the behaviour of objects and light.

Then don't make arguments based on them or, if you do, ensure it does actually apply to at least some of them. This isn't rocket science.

Sure, they use different underlying principles, different terminology, sometimes different from user to user. Learn them, or don't act like you're using them. What is complicated here?

It goes further than "different underlying principles" and "different terminology". It seems that the "underlying principles" are made up ad hoc to fit each situation.
And it seems that there are no rules FEers have to follow because many just make up these rules as they go along.

For example:
   If bendy light is needed to explain the direction of a sunrise many just claim that light must bend and that we "don't know how light behaves over long distances".
   Einstein's GR claims that spacetime is curved so John Davis assumes that space can curve in such a way as to make a flat earth curve into the appearance of a sphere.
   Cosmologists claim that space is expanding but not within millions if light years of here but some FEers claim that expanding space can support the sun, etc above the "infinite plane" flat earth.
And no argument against these "explanations" seems to get anywhere.

See what I mean?

It goes further than "different underlying principles" and "different terminology". It seems that the "underlying principles" are made up ad hoc to fit each situation.
And it seems that there are no rules FEers have to follow because many just make up these rules as they go along.

No, you just have an exceedingly short attention span. You're talking to the person that wrote up those rules and models. Don't bullshit me, I know that's not true.

If you can't piece it together, that's on you, not them.

For example:
   If bendy light is needed to explain the direction of a sunrise many just claim that light must bend and that we "don't know how light behaves over long distances".
   Einstein's GR claims that spacetime is curved so John Davis assumes that space can curve in such a way as to make a flat earth curve into the appearance of a sphere.
   Cosmologists claim that space is expanding but not within millions if light years of here but some FEers claim that expanding space can support the sun, etc above the "infinite plane" flat earth.
And no argument against these "explanations" seems to get anywhere.

See what I mean?

Yep, I see what you mean: a bunch of stuff you just made up that no FEer has ever said.
Bendy light primarily comes from a variant of UA, where light seems to be accelerated vertically too; not knowing how light behaves over long distances is an argument to justify the principle, not explain it. Non-Euclidean space has nothing to do with Einstein's GR beyond the example that space does not need to be Euclidean. Ditto for expanding space; cosmologists are an example that the basic idea is accepted as possible, not an illustration of what's meant to occur.

The reason it doesn't get anywhere for you is that you're a brick wall. You're arguing against all these explanations, meanwhile they're perfectly happy taking a route around your wall because they are not saying what you want them to be saying. You have had this pointed out to you a truly staggering number of times. I know, I've been there, I've tried vainly to try to get you to acknowledge it. You're a brick wall content in the knowledge that you won't need to budge, because no one cares about making you budge. Your arguments don't work, and you aren't even trying to make them work.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 06, 2019, 05:08:17 PM

It goes further than "different underlying principles" and "different terminology". It seems that the "underlying principles" are made up ad hoc to fit each situation.
And it seems that there are no rules FEers have to follow because many just make up these rules as they go along.

No, you just have an exceedingly short attention span. You're talking to the person that wrote up those rules and models. Don't bullshit me, I know that's not true.

If you can't piece it together, that's on you, not them.

Quote

For example:
   If bendy light is needed to explain the direction of a sunrise many just claim that light must bend and that we "don't know how light behaves over long distances".
   Einstein's GR claims that spacetime is curved so John Davis assumes that space can curve in such a way as to make a flat earth curve into the appearance of a sphere.
   Cosmologists claim that space is expanding but not within millions if light years of here but some FEers claim that expanding space can support the sun, etc above the "infinite plane" flat earth.
And no argument against these "explanations" seems to get anywhere.

See what I mean?

Yep, I see what you mean: a bunch of stuff you just made up that no FEer has ever said.
Bendy light primarily comes from a variant of UA, where light seems to be accelerated vertically too; not knowing how light behaves over long distances is an argument to justify the principle, not explain it.

Incorrect! You just have a short memory. Where's the Love for Bipolar FET? « Reply #8 on: November 17, 2016, 12:13:30 PM »

Non-Euclidean space has nothing to do with Einstein's GR beyond the example that space does not need to be Euclidean.

Really? Why then does John Davis claim EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis

Ditto for expanding space; cosmologists are an example that the basic idea is accepted as possible, not an illustration of what's meant to occur.

Wrong again!
Just because "cosmologists are an example that the basic idea is accepted as possible" is not any reason to justify the "idea is accepted as possible".
As I've tried to explain before there is simply no expansion of space where there are gravitationally bound objects and the sun, etc, are certainly gravitationally bound to the earth in the infinite plane model.

So the "expansion of space" supporting the sun, etc, is not more than another unsupported hypothesis.

The reason it doesn't get anywhere for you is that you're a brick wall. You're arguing against all these explanations, meanwhile they're perfectly happy taking a route around your wall because they are not saying what you want them to be saying.

I'm forever claiming that "these explanations" are no more than hypotheses or guesses that must be backed up by evidence and that is the bricke wall - no-pne has the evidence.

You have had this pointed out to you a truly staggering number of times. I know, I've been there, I've tried vainly to try to get you to acknowledge it. You're a brick wall content in the knowledge that you won't need to budge, because no one cares about making you budge. Your arguments don't work, and you aren't even trying to make them work.

I won't budge until you or someone provides evidence supporting these various hypotheses.
Have you seen the effort people are going to in trying to extract evidence from Sceppy? And that is evidence of experiments that he claims he has but can't/won't release "fo reasons".

But if we are not debating correctly YOU can always show us how! But apparently, you can't.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 06, 2019, 03:21:13 PM

I tried to point our earlier than any idea, and it need not be a flat earth idea needs details both to support and explain it. For example if someone said they had developed a cure for the common cold, insisted it worked by a method and mechanism alien to both chemistry and biology  as is currently understood do you think the FDA should accept it at face value or ask for a thorough examination of the drug and and investigation into the claims surrounding it?

In not just blindly accepting this new wonder drug, and being suspicious about the claims it makes, in no way invalidates or weakens the case for either the underlying principles of chemistry or biology. The same is the case for both DET and denpressure.

You realise this is exactly what I'm saying, don't you? You take a step back and ask them for evidence.
You wouldn't be expected to go into a detailed chemical analysis to determine if it could even have an effect on the human body, let alone the common cold, because at the end of all that you're not left with an answer, you're left with "Oh, it's possible, but not confirmed." So you don't do that unless you're interested in that stuff, you just sit down, say "Ok, where's your justification?" and wait.

When you try to take it further than that, that's when I call you out for bad arguments. You don't get to make claims about a model, but act like you're only asking for the evidence. The two have very different requirements.

No one's saying you should take the time to learn about the ideas except for you. When you start making claims about then, when you start talking about what they contain, then you'd better know what you're talking about or you're just making RET look desperate. But that's on you, you're under no obligation to do any of that. All you need to do, to achieve your stated goal, is three words. "Where's the evidence?"
If instead you want to go the disproof tack, then learning what the hell you're on about is not 'blind acceptance,' it's the most basic step of making an argument.

Take your pick of what you want to do.

Apart from your  post making no actual real sense you have avoided addressing any of the points I have raised!

As far as I can see you have no real interest in the truth of the matter, favouring vague ideas over substance.

Does reality and how the world has been shown to actually work not count for anything in your system? The very fact that you keep refering to these vague flat earth ideas as ‘models’ is pretty indicative of your suspect intellectual judgement.

Incorrect! You just have a short memory. Where's the Love for Bipolar FET? « Reply #8 on: November 17, 2016, 12:13:30 PM »

Quote from: Jane

Non-Euclidean space has nothing to do with Einstein's GR beyond the example that space does not need to be Euclidean.

Really? Why then does John Davis claim EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis

Bipolar FET is not what bendy light refers to. It's just... not. Sure, it's a model with atypical behaviour of light, but bendy light refers to something specific, generally EAT.
And, yep, sensationalist titles meant to draw attention to the site and forum absolutely speak of objective truths.

Wrong again!
Just because "cosmologists are an example that the basic idea is accepted as possible" is not any reason to justify the "idea is accepted as possible".
As I've tried to explain before there is simply no expansion of space where there are gravitationally bound objects and the sun, etc, are certainly gravitationally bound to the earth in the infinite plane model.

You've tried to explain that, and then provided sources which pointed out, like I said, that's only the case when the force of gravity is sufficiently larger than the expansion of space. Jesus christ are you seriously going to drag that into a third thread?!
Once more: gravity doesn't stop working when you get a distance away, it just gets arbitrarily small. By your logic of gravity=no expansion observed, no expansion would ever be observed, but of course that's ludicrous. As logic, and the source you gave say, "The mutual gravitational attraction between two galaxies at that distance is too small to have a significant effect, so the galaxies more or less follow the general flow of the expansion. But it is a different story in a galaxy's local neighborhood. There the gravitational attraction can be very significant and the interactions much more exciting."
Stop throwing a temper tantrum over an ancient thread when you refuse to ever acknowledge or respond to what your own sources say. You don't need to kick up a fuss every single time we interact over the fact I dared disagree with you. Expansion of space can absolutely overwhelm the force of gravity if it is large enough in comparison.

This is why FEers think we're brainwashed. That level of sheer, obstinate idiocy is bloody hard to believe coming from any supposedly well-meaning person.

I'm forever claiming that "these explanations" are no more than hypotheses or guesses that must be backed up by evidence and that is the bricke wall - no-pne has the evidence.

So... you're agreeing with every word I said, you just want to kick up a fight anyway?

If all you want is the evidence, stop throwing temper tantrums expecting to manage disproofs, especially when you have to outright lie (like above) to do so.
You don't get to claim you've managed arguments against models, and then immediately switch tacks to asking for evidence when you get called on how bad your arguments are. If all you want is evidence, then ask for the evidence. I don't have an issue with that, save when the question is ill-defined. You'll notice, if you would ever pay attention to a word anyone other than you says, that I have been explicitly saying as much several times over in this and other threads.
You want evidence? Great!
You want to make claims about the contents of FE model? I expect you to be the one to justify your claims, not to immediately turn tail and act like you were making a totally different argument all along.

Apart from your  post making no actual real sense you have avoided addressing any of the points I have raised!

Why would I? I was agreeing with what you said, just criticising people's failure to actually go along with it. Did you even read my post, or were you just looking for a fight?

Does reality and how the world has been shown to actually work not count for anything in your system? The very fact that you keep refering to these vague flat earth ideas as ‘models’ is pretty indicative of your suspect intellectual judgement.

Model =/= good model, it's a word, have to call them something and i'm not particularly interested in childish name-calling. Yep, the way the world works counts in my mind, that's why I'm a REer and support people asking for the evidence for FET.
That's not the same as claiming to have disproven it. As I've said. At length. Repeatedly. And you're going to accuse me of ignoring your post?