Vagueness in FE

That rich coming from someone who lied about the lunar eclipse they saw and then ran away from the thread when they were outed.

I saw what I saw. I even told you how I measured it. Your only "discourse" is to continually shout "liar" at me.  Why would I continue to return to your vomit?

I saw what I saw. I even told you how I measured it. Your only "discourse" is to continually shout "liar" at me.  Why would I continue to return to your vomit?

I agree, when the position of the moon at the time you listed was nowhere near where you said it was, I would leave too and never return.

Lurk more

Have done. Probably more than you to be honest.

Take the denpressure experiment thread; he rejected the experiments performed there, but (gasp) he said more than just "I reject your reality and substitute my own." He rejected the experiments under the claim that they were unreliable. I disagree, you likely do, but here's the thing; that's a claim that can be examined. He gave reasons that the results were not necessarily trustworthy, like the questionable reliability and data that could be measured in those circumstances.

Equating the claim that an experiment is unreliable with just blind rejection is... like I said, nuance, it shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate that the experiments are reliable, but you balk at putting any effort in yourself and just expect FEers to do all the work for you. That's not how debate works.

What do you think is achieved when you purposefully ignore the key contents of what someone posts? It doesn't make you convincing to anyone that isn't already firmly on your side.

Quote from: Ski on February 09, 2019, 05:36:04 PM

I saw what I saw. I even told you how I measured it. Your only "discourse" is to continually shout "liar" at me.  Why would I continue to return to your vomit?

I agree, when the position of the moon at the time you listed was nowhere near where you said it was, I would leave too and never return.

I could believe you, who was not there and has consistently shown himself to be an idiot, or I could believe my eyes...  It was really a tough choice.       I could not care less what you think. I was there. There is no reason to try to reason with you, because you are eminently unreasonable.

If my not wasting my time shouting "did not!" , "did, too!"   with a rude autist is your victory , by all means, savour what few joys life brings you.

Quote from: sokarul on February 09, 2019, 05:16:03 PM

Lurk more

Have done. Probably more than you to be honest.

lol

Take the denpressure experiment thread; he rejected the experiments performed there, but (gasp) he said more than just "I reject your reality and substitute my own." He rejected the experiments under the claim that they were unreliable. I disagree, you likely do, but here's the thing; that's a claim that can be examined. He gave reasons that the results were not necessarily trustworthy, like the questionable reliability and data that could be measured in those circumstances.

Equating the claim that an experiment is unreliable with just blind rejection is... like I said, nuance, it shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate that the experiments are reliable, but you balk at putting any effort in yourself and just expect FEers to do all the work for you. That's not how debate works.

What do you think is achieved when you purposefully ignore the key contents of what someone posts? It doesn't make you convincing to anyone that isn't already firmly on your side.

You are turning science into a psudosciene where one person can claim what science is good and what is junk. All "reasons" presented are opinion based, opinions are not science.  He is literally blindly rejecting, which you say is bad. Your bias doesn't let you see this however. Keep up the good work though, this form needs more annoying people who don't actually add anything now that hoppy is gone.

Quote from: sokarul on February 09, 2019, 05:38:06 PM

Quote from: Ski on February 09, 2019, 05:36:04 PM

I saw what I saw. I even told you how I measured it. Your only "discourse" is to continually shout "liar" at me.  Why would I continue to return to your vomit?

I agree, when the position of the moon at the time you listed was nowhere near where you said it was, I would leave too and never return.

I could believe you, who was not there and has consistently shown himself to be an idiot, or I could believe my eyes...  It was really a tough choice.       I could not care less what you think. I was there. There is no reason to try to reason with you, because you are eminently unreasonable.

If my not wasting my time shouting "did not!" , "did, too!"   with a rude autist is your victory , by all means, savour what few joys life brings you.

Tell us how the moon was 20 degrees up at 7 am when the moon was 20 degrees up at 5 am.

You are turning science into a psudosciene where one person can claim what science is good and what is junk. All "reasons" presented are opinion based, opinions are not science.  He is literally blindly rejecting, which you say is bad. Your bias doesn't let you see this however. Keep up the good work though, this form needs more annoying people who don't actually add anything now that hoppy is gone.

No, you're treating science like it's pseudoscience. The difference is that science can be backed up, while pseudoscience can only be defended by insistence and evasion. Science has a solid foundation, solid support, you can defend it openly and honestly. If they are opinion based, then demonstrate that. Claims that experiments are unreliable however are rather more than opinion, they are a statement about reality that can be confirmed or denied.
Are you seriously going to claim otherwise?

You might find people less annoying if you decided to actually listen to what they had to say, rather than ignoring it because you like the sound of your own voice too much.

Please teach me more about science.

I told you what I saw, and how I measured it. I told the date, and as best as possible my recollection of the time of the sighting. Your belief(s) about my experience really make no difference to me.

I await your Nobel Prize.

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

Which is what exactly?

Quote from: sokarul on February 09, 2019, 05:52:35 PM

You are turning science into a psudosciene where one person can claim what science is good and what is junk. All "reasons" presented are opinion based, opinions are not science.  He is literally blindly rejecting, which you say is bad. Your bias doesn't let you see this however. Keep up the good work though, this form needs more annoying people who don't actually add anything now that hoppy is gone.

No, you're treating science like it's pseudoscience. The difference is that science can be backed up, while pseudoscience can only be defended by insistence and evasion. Science has a solid foundation, solid support, you can defend it openly and honestly. If they are opinion based, then demonstrate that. Claims that experiments are unreliable however are rather more than opinion, they are a statement about reality that can be confirmed or denied.
Are you seriously going to claim otherwise?

You might find people less annoying if you decided to actually listen to what they had to say, rather than ignoring it because you like the sound of your own voice too much.

Your wish is to ignore science completely, and use a different set of values when examining any FE ideas, or at least that’s how you come across.

If you relied purely on science to evaluate DET and denpressure what do you think the result would be ?

Your wish is to ignore science completely, and use a different set of values when examining any FE ideas, or at least that’s how you come across.

If you relied purely on science to evaluate DET and denpressure what do you think the result would be ?

Are you referring the the scientific method, or facts accepted because of the scientific method that by definition are always allowed competition?

I give up.

I thought you would.

Clearly the shape of the earth is known, why do some people disagree?

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 10, 2019, 12:41:11 AM

Your wish is to ignore science completely, and use a different set of values when examining any FE ideas, or at least that’s how you come across.

If you relied purely on science to evaluate DET and denpressure what do you think the result would be ?

Are you referring the the scientific method, or facts accepted because of the scientific method that by definition are always allowed competition?

I’m not refining anything, but I’ll tell you what I am doing, and that’s being perplexed and mystified and I’ll tell you why.

You want to use the language and methods of science to discuss something that is totally unscientific in nature and totally at odds with the world of science. Nothing in the FE world can be considered scientific especially DET, and that is a scientific fact.

However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?

You defend unscientific ideas like DET which is opposed to science in every single respect, yet you want some kind of weird scientific hybrid to judge and quantify it. Because there is nothing remotely scientific about DET, in that it contradicts much of what science has proven there is little need to disassemble such a ridiculous idea as DET.

Bad arguments!...I think you know more about them than anyone else around as you constantly employ them, while claiming other people are using them

I’m not refining anything, but I’ll tell you what I am doing, and that’s being perplexed and mystified and I’ll tell you why.

You want to use the language and methods of science to discuss something that is totally unscientific in nature and totally at odds with the world of science. Nothing in the FE world can be considered scientific especially DET, and that is a scientific fact.

However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?

You defend unscientific ideas like DET which is opposed to science in every single respect, yet you want some kind of weird scientific hybrid to judge and quantify it. Because there is nothing remotely scientific about DET, in that it contradicts much of what science has proven there is little need to disassemble such a ridiculous idea as DET.

Bad arguments!...I think you know more about them than anyone else around as you constantly employ them, while claiming other people are using them

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, do so.

If you want to make claims about a model to disprove it, a completely different argument, then you need to apply the scientific method in order to do so; you cannot make claims about something if you don't understand it.

This is not hard. You want to claim to have disproven something, but don't want to say anything beyond "Lacks evidence." Frankly, you're an idiot. Rejecting something because it lacks evidence is perfectly valid, and it's evidently something you're happy to do, so why the hell aren't you doing it?!
You do not need to have refuted something in order to reject it. You evidently don't actually want to put in the work necessary for a disproof, so stop swaggering about and pretending you have. Ask for the evidence, and stop acting like you're supporting any argument beyond that.

Also science hasn't proven anything. That's not how it works. If we acted like you we'd still think the Sun revolved around the Earth because, hey, science has proven that, why move on? Science works because of the evidence supporting it. You should be happy to provide that evidence if you actually gave a damn. It's just a google away, it's not hard.
It's like talking to a brick wall. You didn't even answer a straight bloody question.

You want to use the language and methods of science to discuss something that is totally unscientific in nature and totally at odds with the world of science. Nothing in the FE world can be considered scientific especially DET, and that is a scientific fact.

Also: no, I don't. You do. That's what a disproof is. You cannot mount any kind of refutation without the basic equipment and concept of what a refutation is. The moment you claim FET is proven false, you are using a scientific toolkit. There's nothing else that exists to prove something wrong, beyond pseudoscience.

I'm perfectly content rejecting it because it lacks evidence. That's sufficient. So why the hell aren't you?

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 10, 2019, 02:17:28 PM

However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?

<< Ignored as it's addressed to Lonegranger >>

What about YOU answering the question asked?
 "However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?"

What about YOU answering the question asked?
 "However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?"

Why would I when I have never claimed that there is any such thing? In fact I have emphatically and repeatedly stated the precise opposite.

Why are you just trying to distract?
If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2019, 03:06:50 PM

What about YOU answering the question asked?
"However show me one element of DET, with evidence, that can be shown to be scientific in nature and arrived at by what could be called a scientific method?"

Why would I when I have never claimed that there is any such thing? In fact I have emphatically and repeatedly stated the precise opposite.

Why are you just trying to distract?

I am NOT "just trying to distract", I'm trying to get you to make a useful post instead of forever doing nothing but making personal attacks.
Still, if you are unable to do anything, I guess all you have left to do is to attack those who try!

I am NOT "just trying to distract", I'm trying to get you to make a useful post instead of forever doing nothing but making personal attacks.
Still, if you are unable to do anything, I guess all you have left to do is to attack those who try!

If you think criticising the logic in a post is a personal attack and 'not useful,' that says way more about you than it does me. Personally I'd call logical coherence a useful goal.

Look at that, once more distracting from the actual contents of the post. Let me remind you, to see if you avoid it again:

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

Tell me, rather than evading again, what do you find so objectionable about that?

He objects to it because you posted it.

<< ignored >>

I find you objectionable because it's all you seem to do!

In case you had forgotten or never knew, the topic is "Vagueness in FE".

So you might comment whether or not the following post supports that.

One might suspect a variety of sources. Celestial gravitation, local variances in mass density below, the existence of "sub-terranian" celestial bodies/gravitation, etc.

And your mathematics expertise might be useful in the discussions on how the gravitational potential of the sun might affect clock rates in GPS satellites.

But,  do you care?

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 03:45:54 PM

<< ignored >>

I find you objectionable because it's all you seem to do!

And you say you don't evade.

I only repeat it because it goes ignored. If I have to explain the fundamentals of what logic is to someone, how is a debate even possible? And if that's not logical, then tell me the bloody problem already rather than going off on your usual irrelevant tangents.

Reminder:

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

And your mathematics expertise might be useful in the discussions on how the gravitational potential of the sun might affect clock rates in GPS satellites.

But,  do you care?

Last time I tried to put together an actual disproof in a thread I had to spend half my time defending the concept of making an argument. Given you aren't actually interested in making an informed argument, why should I bother? They're done out of interest, they don't achieve anything else. If no one's interested, what is the point?

Last time I tried to put together an actual disproof in a thread I had to spend half my time defending the concept of making an argument.

Possibly because your "disproof" had no valid basis and no supporting evidence.

Given you aren't actually interested in making an informed argument, why should I bother?

You are great at assigning motive to everyone else! Are you a mind-reader, clairvoyant or internet psychiatrist now?

Why do you care what I think?
I'm not the only one here and I spend lots of time making informed arguments to sandokhan and the like only to have them ignored or ridiculed.

But presumably others read the posts and can form there own opinions.

They're done out of interest, they don't achieve anything else. If no one's interested, what is the point?

And it appears few are interested in your persistent carping about what others do, especially as you do little else.

Try playing in the bigger Flat Earth "community" on YouTube! Just see the sort of arguments the "real flat-earthers" post.

Why do you care what I think?
I'm not the only one here and I spend lots of time making informed arguments to sandokhan and the like only to have them ignored or ridiculed.

But presumably others read the posts and can form there own opinions.

Yep, and the opinion they will form, unless they already agree with you, is that RET must be anti-scientific and REers morons considering you refuse to answer a simple question.

If I have to explain the fundamentals of what logic is to someone, how is a debate even possible? And if that's not logical, then tell me the bloody problem already rather than going off on your usual irrelevant tangents.

Reminder:

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 03:19:33 PM

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

I don't give a damn what you think, I care the impression you give of us. If the 'informed arguments' you make to Sandokhan compare to the arguments you've had with me it's no wonder you get ignored and ridiculed. Spamming an assertion and ignoring any and all response to it is not an informed argument, especially if you bring it up where it's not relevant. If you want to hold to it despite responses, you have to show what is wrong with those responses. Just like is demonstrated in this thread however you are apparently fundamentally incapable of responding to a straight question.

Seriously. With how often you kick up a fuss that I dare call out REers, why do you refuse to justify why?

If the 'informed arguments' you make to Sandokhan compare to the arguments you've had with me it's no wonder you get ignored and ridiculed.

Since you've obviously never bothered to read any you're hardly in a position to comment.

Instead of criticising what others do show us how it should be done better!

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 06:28:15 PM

If the 'informed arguments' you make to Sandokhan compare to the arguments you've had with me it's no wonder you get ignored and ridiculed.

Since you've obviously never bothered to read any you're hardly in a position to comment.

Instead of criticising what others do show us how it should be done better!

Done and done.

I read. That's why I actually replied with an explanation and illustration of why your claims did not hold. You just spammed.

If you have an actual objection to the contents of what I post beyond "How dare you call me out!" I'm still waiting.

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 05:08:18 PM

If I have to explain the fundamentals of what logic is to someone, how is a debate even possible? And if that's not logical, then tell me the bloody problem already rather than going off on your usual irrelevant tangents.

Reminder:

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 03:19:33 PM

If you want to reject something because it lacks evidence, go right ahead and do that! I'm right there with you.
But when you decide that's not good enough, that the scientific death knell of "Unsupported by evidence," is somehow not sufficient for you and you want to move on to refutations and disproofs then don't throw a fit when you're expected to have the slightest clue about what you're making claims about. Why is this such a hard concept for you?!

Just like is demonstrated in this thread however you are apparently fundamentally incapable of responding to a straight question.

Seriously. With how often you kick up a fuss that I dare call out REers, why do you refuse to justify why?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2019, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 10, 2019, 06:28:15 PM

If the 'informed arguments' you make to Sandokhan compare to the arguments you've had with me it's no wonder you get ignored and ridiculed.

Since you've obviously never bothered to read any you're hardly in a position to comment.

Instead of criticising what others do show us how it should be done better!

Done and done.

I read. That's why I actually replied with an explanation and illustration of why your claims did not hold. You just spammed.

And where did you post "with an explanation and illustration of why your claims did not hold"?

You don't mean that piezoelectric thing surely? What a laugh! As I replied there's no point in presenting evidence to sceptimatic.

Now apply you infinite wisdom to answering this: Re: Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society? « Reply #88 on: Today at 04:51:27 PM »

If you have an actual objection to the contents of what I post beyond "How dare you call me out!" I'm still waiting.