Vagueness in FE

Quote from: sokarul on February 08, 2019, 09:39:08 AM

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

You need to show why I said that.
Using quotes like that to imply another meaning, does not favour you.

You said it, you should know.

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Why don't you take the time to actually dedicate a thread to that topic rather than spamming multiple unrelated threads with it and never sticking around for the answers?

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 12:28:41 PM

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Why don't you take the time to actually dedicate a thread to that topic rather than spamming multiple unrelated threads with it and never sticking around for the answers?

Because scepti has not provided a valid answer, just reminding him.

All threads on the subject disappear because various people cannot explain dishes pointing to a specific location above the equator which tends to show the earth is actually round.  It's a bit awkward for them.

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 12:44:26 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 12:28:41 PM

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Why don't you take the time to actually dedicate a thread to that topic rather than spamming multiple unrelated threads with it and never sticking around for the answers?

Because scepti has not provided a valid answer, just reminding him.

All threads on the subject disappear because various people cannot explain dishes pointing to a specific location above the equator which tends to show the earth is actually round.  It's a bit awkward for them.

If you want anyone to believe you, dedicate a thread to it, refer back to that one place. I know I've seen you be given responses, and I've also seen your typical terseness render you unable to actually justify any rebuttal. Stop spamming the forum if you have nothing to conribute.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 12:44:26 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 12:28:41 PM

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Why don't you take the time to actually dedicate a thread to that topic rather than spamming multiple unrelated threads with it and never sticking around for the answers?

Because scepti has not provided a valid answer, just reminding him.

All threads on the subject disappear because various people cannot explain dishes pointing to a specific location above the equator which tends to show the earth is actually round.  It's a bit awkward for them.

If you want anyone to believe you, dedicate a thread to it, refer back to that one place. I know I've seen you be given responses, and I've also seen your typical terseness render you unable to actually justify any rebuttal. Stop spamming the forum if you have nothing to conribute.

Like when people say there are ground based transmitters and cannot identify any sites? Or provide any documentation.  I notice there is rarely any links to other sites like the GPS site with caims they are wrong.

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 01:49:27 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 12:44:26 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 12:28:41 PM

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Why don't you take the time to actually dedicate a thread to that topic rather than spamming multiple unrelated threads with it and never sticking around for the answers?

Because scepti has not provided a valid answer, just reminding him.

All threads on the subject disappear because various people cannot explain dishes pointing to a specific location above the equator which tends to show the earth is actually round.  It's a bit awkward for them.

If you want anyone to believe you, dedicate a thread to it, refer back to that one place. I know I've seen you be given responses, and I've also seen your typical terseness render you unable to actually justify any rebuttal. Stop spamming the forum if you have nothing to conribute.

Like when people say there are ground based transmitters and cannot identify any sites? Or provide any documentation.  I notice there is rarely any links to other sites like the GPS site with caims they are wrong.

Spamming the same questions doesn't make you look smart or make it seem like you have a point, it makes you seem like you are avoiding answers. If you care about responses, keep it in one place so you don't do your usual and just post a question and vanish, ignoring every reply. Seriously, why are you still trying to drag this thread off its already tenuous topic?

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 02:58:47 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 01:49:27 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 12:44:26 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 08, 2019, 12:28:41 PM

Still waiting for you to explain how satellite tv works.

Why don't you take the time to actually dedicate a thread to that topic rather than spamming multiple unrelated threads with it and never sticking around for the answers?

Because scepti has not provided a valid answer, just reminding him.

All threads on the subject disappear because various people cannot explain dishes pointing to a specific location above the equator which tends to show the earth is actually round.  It's a bit awkward for them.

If you want anyone to believe you, dedicate a thread to it, refer back to that one place. I know I've seen you be given responses, and I've also seen your typical terseness render you unable to actually justify any rebuttal. Stop spamming the forum if you have nothing to conribute.

Like when people say there are ground based transmitters and cannot identify any sites? Or provide any documentation.  I notice there is rarely any links to other sites like the GPS site with caims they are wrong.

Spamming the same questions doesn't make you look smart or make it seem like you have a point, it makes you seem like you are avoiding answers. If you care about responses, keep it in one place so you don't do your usual and just post a question and vanish, ignoring every reply. Seriously, why are you still trying to drag this thread off its already tenuous topic?

To show an example of asking for more detail to prove or disprove a statement like there are ground based transmitters where others vanish when asked for details.  What replies have I ignored?

I give up.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 08, 2019, 08:08:58 AM

Again you don't understand.....its not me who disagrees with these ideas, lets make it clear they are not models, its reality that renders them null and void, and you don't quite understand that.

Quote from: Jane on February 07, 2019, 03:05:49 PM

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about. Instead of addressing that, you do this. Of course. You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

How many times is this going to need to be repeated?
If all you are doing is asking for evidence, I support that. That's what the questions you posed are, at least partially. How is the DET model of the Sun justified? That is at least a valid question.

But the rest? You're treating science like it's pseudoscience. 'Just plain wrong' is a pointless statement if you don't know why it's wrong. If all you are going to do is endlessly repeat that then you might as well just leave because it doesn't contribute anything. Science doesn't function on force of will, it works because of reason and logic. It works because we have reasons to accept the current theories, we have observations that justify them. If you are going to keep going around with posts like that, then do more than handwave. Why is denpressure at odds with the industrial revolution? What justification do we have that the current understanding of the Sun is any better than the DET one?
Dumb questions? Maybe, but you're the one who's choosing the path where you need to answer them. You're the one that has decided that just asking for the evidence apparently isn't good enough, and basic logic holds. You're the one that decided to move on to making claims about FE models, that requires actually being able to make an informed case. This isn't some bizarre pseudoscientific notion, it is the definition of an argument. If you want to make a claim about something, you have to know what it entails. You need to actually understand the denpressure modle of gas and molecules, you have to listen to the times you've had your question about the energy source of the DE Sun answered by me and JRowe both, and you have to make a case based on what is said.

If you think that's a waste of time, then stop talking about things you refuse to learn. End of story.

I am not 'championing' these ideas. You're the one who's choosing to make claims about them. I'm content rejecting them based on lack of evidence.
If a FEer said to you 'reality makes RET false' would you believe that? It's a handwave, not an argument.

So, to summarise in the hope you're not just going to have another ramble in which you say absolutely nothing of value:

1. You can choose to reject FET based on the lack of evidence.
2. You can choose to try for a disproof, demonstrating it is at odds with observations and reality. Keyword demonstrate, not assert. How can this be done if you don't know what would be expected to be observed under the FE model? You need to know what you're talking about. if you don't want to, fine, stick to point one.

This seriously should not need explaining, let alone repeating.

What is the thing I’m refusing to learn? that’s acording to you, the one that thinks there is some merit in DET. Which  I think that speaks for itself.

What claims are I making about your FE ideas?  I didn’t think I was making any, please elaborate.

Whats this....expected to be observed?......there is, the last time I looked, only one world in which we all live, there is no separate world for those who subscribe to FE beliefs, therefore there are one set of laws that govern everything, and no separate laws for FE. It’s just as I said previously, you appear to be saying that FE ideas should somehow be judged under different criteria from that of the real world! Why do you believe this?

I think rejecting any idea based on evidence is a pretty sound way to do things, what alternative method do you suggest?

What is the thing I’m refusing to learn? that’s acording to you, the one that thinks there is some merit in DET. Which  I think that speaks for itself.

What claims are I making about your FE ideas?  I didn’t think I was making any, please elaborate.

You literally just did. Where on earth are you getting this idea that I even remotely accept any FE model?

Asking you to know what you're talking about if you insist on making claims about them is not the same as believing in it. It's just common sense, especially if you want to achieve any more than making REers look uninformed and ignorant.

I think rejecting any idea based on evidence is a pretty sound way to do things, what alternative method do you suggest?

Actually giving evidence rather than handwaving would be a great start. You are acting as though all we have is assertion. I sincerely hope you don't relaly think that.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 08, 2019, 04:39:58 PM

What is the thing I’m refusing to learn? that’s acording to you, the one that thinks there is some merit in DET. Which  I think that speaks for itself.

What claims are I making about your FE ideas?  I didn’t think I was making any, please elaborate.

You literally just did. Where on earth are you getting this idea that I even remotely accept any FE model?

Asking you to know what you're talking about if you insist on making claims about them is not the same as believing in it. It's just common sense, especially if you want to achieve any more than making REers look uninformed and ignorant.

Quote

I think rejecting any idea based on evidence is a pretty sound way to do things, what alternative method do you suggest?

Actually giving evidence rather than handwaving would be a great start. You are acting as though all we have is assertion. I sincerely hope you don't relaly think that.

What would you, and others, accept as evidence?

What would you, and others, accept as evidence?

Can't speak for anyone else.
And did you miss the part where I said I'm already a REer? What are you trying to convince me of with evidence?

Quote from: inquisitive on February 09, 2019, 12:52:57 AM

What would you, and others, accept as evidence?

Can't speak for anyone else.
And did you miss the part where I said I'm already a REer? What are you trying to convince me of with evidence?

I think inquisitive was probably referring to this:

Actually giving evidence rather than handwaving would be a great start. You are acting as though all we have is assertion. I sincerely hope you don't relaly think that.

You seem to the one suggesting “round earthers” here don’t provide evidence.  Not true, of course, many do all the time, but you seem to regard that as “spamming threads” or something.

Handwaving, indeed.  It pretty clear which side that generally comes from.

It’s also not true that others here haven’t put the effort into following the responses given by flat earthers.  The threads where individual “models” (not actually models) are discussed are full of direct responses to the ideas given.

Your defense of flat earth theories appears to have warped into some weird idea that you are the only reasonable “round earther”, and the rest of us are just arseholes.

Incidentally, there’s no such thing as a “round earther”, just normal people who haven’t bought into the world’s most bizarre conspiracy theory.

You seem to the one suggesting “round earthers” here don’t provide evidence.  Not true, of course, many do all the time, but you seem to regard that as “spamming threads” or something.

Why do you assume me talking to specific users and the specific posts I was quoting somehow applies to all REers?

It’s also not true that others here haven’t put the effort into following the responses given by flat earthers.  The threads where individual “models” (not actually models) are discussed are full of direct responses to the ideas given.

And how many of them are there, compared to how many threads are on the forum? And 'direct responses' is dubious, 90% of the time it's people intentionally looking for the worst possible interpretation of every quirk of phrasing. See: what you literally just did, turning messages directly to Inquisitive, who does nothing but post one or two line posts (the same couple of demands) for months on end in threads where they're barely relevant, into a criticism of all REers despite the fact that makes zero sense. Turning me pointing out LG did nothing but handwave 'oh, it's wrong' as he's done plenty of times before and didn't bother actually giving the evidence he relied on, into accusing all REers of not providing evidence.

Quote from: sokarul on February 08, 2019, 09:39:08 AM

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

Why do I need to when plenty of others will jump in the thread to do just that? I don't talk just to hear myself speak, I talk when I have something to actually add to a thread. Repeating what multiple other people have said hardly does that.

If anything I'd say "Ok, why do you think that?" but there's really no point in trying to have an actually interesting discussion with the number of people who'll get in the way.

I think I said this before but, you clearly do t believe what you preach. All you want to do is attack certain members.

Why don’t you grow up.

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 09:45:42 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 08, 2019, 09:39:08 AM

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

Why do I need to when plenty of others will jump in the thread to do just that? I don't talk just to hear myself speak, I talk when I have something to actually add to a thread. Repeating what multiple other people have said hardly does that.

If anything I'd say "Ok, why do you think that?" but there's really no point in trying to have an actually interesting discussion with the number of people who'll get in the way.

I think I said this before but, you clearly do t believe what you preach. All you want to do is attack certain members.

Why don’t you grow up.

I call out bad arguments. Sometimes I'm snippy about it because of past experience with that particular user. Don't like it? Don't make bad arguments. Easy.
If you think it's worth posting just to mob someone, then of course you'd think getting called out is an attack. Not my problem.

And I am still waiting for answers to my questions about the horizon on a flat earth.

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 09, 2019, 06:06:50 AM

You seem to the one suggesting “round earthers” here don’t provide evidence.  Not true, of course, many do all the time, but you seem to regard that as “spamming threads” or something.

Why do you assume me talking to specific users and the specific posts I was quoting somehow applies to all REers?

Because you've spent the last three pages complaining about "round earthers" in general.  Anyone who have posted here, the regulars, and even the noobs, who apparently should be completely familiar with all the different "models" before asking a simple question about the most common claims found on YouTube.

I'm terribly sorry if I assumed that this one point was different and only applied to Inquisitive.

It’s also not true that others here haven’t put the effort into following the responses given by flat earthers.  The threads where individual “models” (not actually models) are discussed are full of direct responses to the ideas given.

And how many of them are there, compared to how many threads are on the forum? [/quote]

There's very few hreads where flat earthers go into specifics.  Most don't bother.  If flat earthers aren't going into specifics, why shouldn't "round earthers" bring them up? 

And 'direct responses' is dubious, 90% of the time it's people intentionally looking for the worst possible interpretation of every quirk of phrasing.

In your opinion, maybe.  See the Newton and Hawking thread, where Sandokhan keeps posting Newton quotes.  Everyone is responding directly to his claims.

See: what you literally just did, turning messages directly to Inquisitive, who does nothing but post one or two line posts (the same couple of demands) for months on end in threads where they're barely relevant, into a criticism of all REers despite the fact that makes zero sense. Turning me pointing out LG did nothing but handwave 'oh, it's wrong' as he's done plenty of times before and didn't bother actually giving the evidence he relied on, into accusing all REers of not providing evidence.

Shock horror.  Was this the most possible interpretation?

Well, it didn't take long for you to accuse me of being dishonest a few pages back (not for the first time, I might add).  And when I politely suggested you could give people the benefit of the doubt, you said it wasn't "practical".

Maybe I just I took your advice?

Read Earth not a globe.

Anyone who have posted here, the regulars, and even the noobs, who apparently should be completely familiar with all the different "models" before asking a simple question about the most common claims found on YouTube.

What? No. They can ask what they want, but claiming to have arguments against models they haven't asked about is objectively stupid. Take a look at how many questions are actually "FET can't explain...!" vs "What FE principles are used for...?"
See: intentionally looking for the interpretation of a post that lets you criticise, regardless of how little sense it makes. This seriously isn't hard. If I talk about basic principles of logic that hold independently of anything, that's universal. If I talk about specific behaviour, that's directed to users who exhibit said behaviour.

If flat earthers aren't going into specifics, why shouldn't "round earthers" bring them up? 

You'd be amazed the number of times answers just plain go ignored. And, again, practicality. You quickly run into the fact that 90% of long-term FEers have zero interest in going into detail explaining part of a model to someone that's never going to post again, or to someone who plainly doesn't give a damn and is just looking for a fight. What do you expect?
Specifics are there, I've written up a few of them, but if you're not worth talking to who'd bother dedicating half an hour to follow your whims?

I think maybe we have different criteria for what counts as a satisfactory answer.

We definitely have different criteria for what counts as a model.

Because as far as I see most noob questions (which still seem to based on the most common ideas) are still pretty valid even with the explanations given, such as they are. 

Obviously something like an ice wall is very different from an infinite plane.  But occasionally someone comes asking about the ice wall (which is at least a common idea) and get responses like “who told you there’s an ice wall?”  Not very helpful.

I think maybe we have different criteria for what counts as a satisfactory answer.

We definitely have different criteria for what counts as a model.

Model is a word. If you are seriously going to quibble over something that makes absolutely no claims about quality rather than anything that actually matters, that might be why FEers don't bother with you.
Satisfactory doesn't matter as much as 'answer' does. If it's unsatisfactory that still means you need to take the time to explain why, not just reject it and leave the question unrefined. Eg, you could make the case UA doesn't explain variations in gravity, and an FEer could bring up celestial gravitation. Whatever you think of that, it does allow for variations in gravity, so either leave that question by the wayside and take a different approach (again, if you even want to bother with disproofs), or mount a separate case against celestial gravitation. (And for bonus points, how that conversation will go, just to demonstrate why FEers find the stock arguments so boring. "Why should just the stars exert gravity? Why not the Earth, thus pulling it into a ball?" "Celestial matter is not necessarily the same as terrestrial." "The Cavendish experiment demonstrates mass on Earth attracts mass." "Actually it just shows it for lead. The idea mass attracts mass universally is an assumption, it has only been tested for certain elements in certain situations, it may not be universally true..." etc etc. And that's further than that discussion usually goes. Every discussion has been had, most likely several times over, unless you've got a new approach any long-term user can tell you the first few posts in the exchange on both sides. Going into detail again and again when you know how it'll play out is not the most enticing use of time).

Because as far as I see most noob questions (which still seem to based on the most common ideas) are still pretty valid even with the explanations given, such as they are. 

Obviously something like an ice wall is very different from an infinite plane.  But occasionally someone comes asking about the ice wall (which is at least a common idea) and get responses like “who told you there’s an ice wall?”  Not very helpful.

More often than not that's in the situation when it's a newcomer who may not be aware that there's more than one FE model out there. Pretty helpful in that case so that they don't start trying to jam all mechanisms into one.

Quote from: sokarul on February 09, 2019, 10:07:50 AM

Quote from: Jane on February 08, 2019, 09:45:42 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 08, 2019, 09:39:08 AM

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

Why do I need to when plenty of others will jump in the thread to do just that? I don't talk just to hear myself speak, I talk when I have something to actually add to a thread. Repeating what multiple other people have said hardly does that.

If anything I'd say "Ok, why do you think that?" but there's really no point in trying to have an actually interesting discussion with the number of people who'll get in the way.

I think I said this before but, you clearly do t believe what you preach. All you want to do is attack certain members.

Why don’t you grow up.

I call out bad arguments. Sometimes I'm snippy about it because of past experience with that particular user. Don't like it? Don't make bad arguments. Easy.
If you think it's worth posting just to mob someone, then of course you'd think getting called out is an attack. Not my problem.

Arguments you think are bad and arguments that are bad can be two different things. Perhaps if you cut out your blatant bias, you could see this.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 08, 2019, 04:39:58 PM

What is the thing I’m refusing to learn? that’s acording to you, the one that thinks there is some merit in DET. Which  I think that speaks for itself.

What claims are I making about your FE ideas?  I didn’t think I was making any, please elaborate.

You literally just did. Where on earth are you getting this idea that I even remotely accept any FE model?

Asking you to know what you're talking about if you insist on making claims about them is not the same as believing in it. It's just common sense, especially if you want to achieve any more than making REers look uninformed and ignorant.

Quote

I think rejecting any idea based on evidence is a pretty sound way to do things, what alternative method do you suggest?

Actually giving evidence rather than handwaving would be a great start. You are acting as though all we have is assertion. I sincerely hope you don't relaly think that.

You need to go back and read what I’ve actuall said. To help make things clearers I’ll summarise.

Any ideas FE or otherwise that are in direct opposition to accepted and proven knowledge have the burden of proof on them.

This is especially true if the area of contention is something readily observed and has a fundemental role in every day technology. The example I gave was denpressure and how it is in direct conflict with all the known laws on gasses, which every heat engine on the planet operates under. By heat engine I mean any mechanism that transforms chemical/ heat energy in mechanical. This is an old and proven technology that is well understood. Our understanding of how  gasses behave is also central to many basic technologies such as refrigeration.

In a situation like this where one man with no track record in science wants to over turn two centuries of experimentation, observation and experience is on the face of it doomed to failure regardless of the strength of the individuals conviction or belief. It’s doubly problematic when said creator of denpressure denies the existance of something many people have had direct experience of, vacuums or vacuum chambers to be precise. It’s a bit of a red flag.

On the face of it, how likely is it that denpressure is correct given our observations of the world and how it works when compared to what is offered as proof by denpressure?

I can pick up a book that explains clearly how gasses behave under a range of conditions, that include the supporting mathematics and experiments. I can draw on my own technological training, experience and observations. I can then look at the world and see these laws in action all around........and the alternative,.......someone on a forum with no mathematical, scientific knowledge or basic understanding of physics with an idea that just happens to fit his way of thinking about the dome covered world he imagines we live under.

If that’s not enough you want, no demand, that people take his and other ideas seriously and look at them not based on any real world terms or conditions, but instead examine or analyse them according to some flat earth value system!......and it’s this that is the stumbling block,.......your wish to use a flat earth ‘ruler’ to measure these ideas against rather than the hard facts of reality.

Both DET and denpressure along with phew, and the rewriting of history that some of your flat earth pals advocate are not worthy of consideration as they are all based on nothing more than delusion. Your wish to then measure up these  beliefs in a secondary world of even more fact free delusion using some kind of kack handed logic is an exercise in futility.

Lastly, your idea of what constitutes a bad argument is seriously flawed

Arguments you think are bad and arguments that are bad can be two different things. Perhaps if you cut out your blatant bias, you could see this.

Then debate it rather than objecting to the concept of being called out. And by debate, I mean actually respond rather than repeat what you said before with zero alteration or acknowledgement.

You need to go back and read what I’ve actuall said. To help make things clearers I’ll summarise.

Any ideas FE or otherwise that are in direct opposition to accepted and proven knowledge have the burden of proof on them.

Jesus christ.

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about.

I have been saying the exact bloody same thing. Stop repeating yourself, it's unutterably tedious, especially when you are doing it for no reason beyond just wanting to kick up a fight.

They have the burden of proof, check. They need to explain how things work, check. But when you make claims about something not working, that's when you actually need to show why it wouldn't work. No one is asking you to accept an FE value system, this is basic logic. Reductio ad absurdum, proof by contradiction, whatever you want to call it, you show how an absurdity follows from their point of view. This is not some extreme conspiracy tactic, this is one of the most basic principles in literally any area that deals with logic. If all you do is appeal to what you believe, then all you've demonstrated is that you disagree with them, big whoop.
What matters is which viewpoint is more valid. That is a statement that should be provable; if you can't prove it then your position is a bad one.

Take gravity. RET states we're on the Earth because of gravity, thus the Earth should be round as gravity would make it round.
An FEer responds with UA.
What do you do? Do you just assert that no, gravity's responsible? You'd better not, that's not an argument, that's just bluster, you've given no reason to prefer gravity. A smart person would take the time to look at UA, see what it actually says, and from that come up with objections. Lack of an explanation for variable gravity, infinite energy source required... Then they can give their replies (celestial gravitation, tachyons, whatever) and you can go on. No one is asking you to believe or accept it, just address it. If you can't address it, you haven't refuted it. Basic stuff.
What you want to do is take all those arguments off the table and attempt to refute UA, in this case, without having a bloody clue how to do it. Ok, you have two competing models, gravity and UA. How do you show gravity's better if you don't know where UA succeeds or fails? You won't know whether Cavendish is explained by it, you won't know whether varying gravity is explained by it, you won't even have the building blocks of an argument.
You need to know what a model states if you want to have any hope of mounting an argument against it. Are you seriously going to stand there and disagree with that?!

Reject based on lack of evidence, or refute based on an informed argument. Take your pick, but don't kick up a fuss when you're asked to make sure an argument is, well, informed.

It’s doubly problematic when said creator of denpressure denies the existance of something many people have had direct experience of, vacuums or vacuum chambers to be precise. It’s a bit of a red flag.

The response to that is not to yell "Vacuums exist! We just know!" It is to say "Then how do you explain the following experiments that otherwise rely on vacuums?"
You are treating science like it's pseudoscience, again. Science believes things because of justification, and if you can't give that justification then you don't have an argument. You are just asserting. You have to give something that has a space open for a response, otherwise you're blustering. By your logic we'd still have four elements and aether because someone could always say "But everyone has experience of trees (earth) needing water and producing air and burning (fire)!"
So long as they can explain the results of the experiments you give, they don't have a problem. And if they can, all that means is you have one disproof that fails, disproofs again not being required. If you choose to go that route, if you decide that nope, rejecting because of lack of evidence isn't good enough and you decide to actually address a model, you need to do more than assert. This shouldn't be controversial.

Summary:

• FET can be rejected purely by the question "Where's your evidence for that?"
• You have to know what a model states in order to make claims about what it contains and predicts
• If you cannot give the justification for a statement then it's not an argument

Please, tell me, which of these do you disagree with, or are you just fighting for the sake of fighting?

You typed all that even though you know sceptitank doesn’t accept evidence.

GG

You typed all that even though you know sceptitank doesn’t accept evidence.

GG

Tad more nuanced than that, and your refusal to even acknowledge the concept of any depth beyond 'ignores everything' is what makes you lose all credibility and fail miserably at seemingly remotely interesting or intelligent to anyone that actually bothers paying attention.

Lurk more

You guys are doing a stunning job demonstrating Jane's point