Why are you debating on complex theories?

  • 48 Replies
  • 4025 Views
Why are you debating on complex theories?
« on: August 18, 2019, 06:19:31 PM »
After reading through various topics in this forum I always wonder: Why don't people keep it simple?

There are simple observations, that lead to the conclusion, that the earth is a globe. You can measure the angle of sunrays from different locations on the earth at the same time, get the results together and tadaa: they only fit on a globe.
Instead people debate about tectonic plates on a flat earth, show pictures with light refractions, that "proof" or "disproof" a curvature.. debate about a "dome" or that the sun "disappears in an angle".. I just don't get it.
Take a good filter and you can see, that the sun has the same size throughout the whole sunset.. (it Looks a litte compressed vertically, but horizontally it keeps the same size)..

So.. why don't you keep it simple?
To all "globe-earthers": why do you even waste your time discussing on complex levels?
To all "flat-earthers": how are these simple reproducable observations not enough?

Thanks

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2019, 06:42:11 PM »
After reading through various topics in this forum I always wonder: Why don't people keep it simple?

There are simple observations, that lead to the conclusion, that the earth is a globe. You can measure the angle of sunrays from different locations on the earth at the same time, get the results together and tadaa: they only fit on a globe.
Yes, they only fit the Globe, but ::):
I've tried and some, like Tom Bishop, invent magical bendy light that somehow (magic ???) bends the light to match exactly that observed on the Globe - they've get powerful magic!

Quote from: trustscience
Instead people debate about tectonic plates on a flat earth, show pictures with light refractions, that "proof" or "disproof" a curvature.. debate about a "dome" or that the sun "disappears in an angle".. I just don't get it.
Take a good filter and you can see, that the sun has the same size throughout the whole sunset.. (it Looks a litte compressed vertically, but horizontally it keeps the same size)..
Those solar filters are things of the "devil ::)"! Real zetetics don't trust new fangled gadgets like telescopes and filters.
If it can't be seen with the unaided eye (blinded by a bit Dunning-Kruger Syndrome) it doesn't matter.

Their attitude seems to be that the earth looks flat so the earth must be flat.

Quote from: trustscience
So.. why don't you keep it simple?
To all "globe-earthers": why do you even waste your time discussing on complex levels?
It doesn't work. They've invented lame excuses for all the simple evidence.

Quote from: trustscience
To all "flat-earthers": how are these simple reproducable observations not enough?
A flat-earther's response might be that the flat-earth is an "obvious truth" and all contrary evidence must have been fabricated.

Have a look at Plat Terra's or even Tom Bishop's posts.

I thought like you when I first came but . . . . . . .

That's sort of the story but see for yourself. Most sensible people leave after a few weeks but idiots like . . . . .  ;D
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 12:06:19 AM by rabinoz »

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20047
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2019, 11:29:05 PM »

Most sensible people leave after a few weak but idiots like . . . . .  ;D

How long have you been here?    ;D

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2019, 12:05:23 AM »

Most sensible people leave after a few weeks but idiots like . . . . .  ;D

How long have you been here?    ;D
Some questions are better not answered. ;) others better not asked.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20047
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2019, 12:18:54 AM »
OK   ;)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2019, 12:31:00 AM »
OK   ;)
Just been talking over that same thing with Googleotomy.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20047
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2019, 12:44:51 AM »
Did you know he's in the Navy?

*

Macarios

  • 2083
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2019, 01:08:51 AM »
Did you know he's in the Navy?

Navy Gator ?

I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2019, 01:22:26 AM »
Did you know he's in the Navy?
Sure, he spent "four years in the USN" and knew all about the distance to the horizon vs. lookout height.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2019, 07:07:15 AM »
To all "globe-earthers": why do you even waste your time discussing on complex levels?
Because it makes them feel special. The one thing you quickly note here is that most of the people arguing for RET aren't doing it for scientific reasons, but for egotistical reasons, and that's coming from a REer.

Quote
To all "flat-earthers": how are these simple reproducable observations not enough?
And that's why it tends to end up with complex theories. One way or another, FEers develop their models to the point where basic observations do still need to accomodate more advanced theories. Which, in fairness, is the one way FET has a chance, if the foundations we developed our understanding of science upon were flawed because they didn't account for something that was centuries away from even being hypothesised. So there is that, the issue is more the supposedly flawed foundations having predictive power, but that's a whole debate in itself.
Short version: the conclusion of an observation is dependent on context. Angles of sunrays means completely different things if light doesn't necessarily travel in a straight line, etc.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2019, 08:13:24 AM »
After reading through various topics in this forum I always wonder: Why don't people keep it simple?

There are simple observations, that lead to the conclusion, that the earth is a globe. You can measure the angle of sunrays from different locations on the earth at the same time, get the results together and tadaa: they only fit on a globe.
Instead people debate about tectonic plates on a flat earth, show pictures with light refractions, that "proof" or "disproof" a curvature.. debate about a "dome" or that the sun "disappears in an angle".. I just don't get it.
Take a good filter and you can see, that the sun has the same size throughout the whole sunset.. (it Looks a litte compressed vertically, but horizontally it keeps the same size)..

So.. why don't you keep it simple?
To all "globe-earthers": why do you even waste your time discussing on complex levels?
To all "flat-earthers": how are these simple reproducable observations not enough?

Thanks

Because the simple, easy to prove stuff would shoot down FET in seconds, so they steer away from that.

Remember, FE is a religion, not a science.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41964
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2019, 10:29:17 AM »

Most sensible people leave after a few weak but idiots like . . . . .  ;D

How long have you been here?    ;D
Hey!  I resemble that remark.  >:(  :-[
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2019, 05:07:54 PM »
I sometimes go more complex, so show them something new.
So they can see whatever the details, it still comes out round.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2019, 02:41:36 AM »
I sometimes go more complex, so show them something new.
So they can see whatever the details, it still comes out round.

Does it work? Are they not simply making up another theory that fits their model?
It's really shocking to look into the unlogical abysses they create.. and still smart people waste their time on this..

Dear Slime, you are also luring people into complexity by making up theories, just to leave them speechless? What a shame if so..

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2019, 02:51:35 AM »
Dear Slime, you are also luring people into complexity by making up theories, just to leave them speechless? What a shame if so..
I don't make things up, I just quote what I've seen others say. It doesn't do anyone any favours to pretend those models don't exist. You can feel free to take issue with them, but wholesale denial does nothing but encourage FEers to think that RET is the religion REers accuse FET of being.

'Complex' doesn't really do anyone any favours. Pretty basic elements of RET get pretty complex fast, the only reason we don't notice that is because we're all used to it; FET is new, so all the elements from it feel much more complicated than they are simply because there's a lot to keep track of. Meanwhile, if you want RET to answer the question of why people in Australia aren't falling off, you quickly go from 'gravity pulling towards centre of mass' to 'the effect mass has warping spacetime...' which you can hardly call simple. It just seems that way when you're already familiar with it, but if you want a decent understanding of any of the details you're going to have to embrace complexity.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2019, 12:45:25 AM »
To all "globe-earthers": why do you even waste your time discussing on complex levels?
Because it makes them feel special. The one thing you quickly note here is that most of the people arguing for RET aren't doing it for scientific reasons, but for egotistical reasons, and that's coming from a REer.

Quote
To all "flat-earthers": how are these simple reproducable observations not enough?
And that's why it tends to end up with complex theories. One way or another, FEers develop their models to the point where basic observations do still need to accomodate more advanced theories. Which, in fairness, is the one way FET has a chance, if the foundations we developed our understanding of science upon were flawed because they didn't account for something that was centuries away from even being hypothesised. So there is that, the issue is more the supposedly flawed foundations having predictive power, but that's a whole debate in itself.
Short version: the conclusion of an observation is dependent on context. Angles of sunrays means completely different things if light doesn't necessarily travel in a straight line, etc.

Iím constantly flabbergasted by your insistence that people who frequent this site should take the contents of your repository seriously and give the ideas contained within the time of day.

Statements like the following just make me smile:

conclusion of an observation is dependent on context. Angles of sunrays means completely different things if light doesn't necessarily travel in a straight line, etc.

What you are really saying is science can be ignored if the results donít match your world view. I always like dealing with reality and that it seams is where we part company.

As you mention light, letís take that as an example. Light and the way it behaves is very well understood. Flat earth thinkers approach many subjects like light as though little is known about and make statements that have no scientific basis. Light rays from a distant source such as our  sun and distant stars are parallel in nature and behaviour, ask any astronomer. There is no debate about this itís the way the universe has decided light should behave. Flatearthers donít like this and as a result choose to believe differently. The fact that they are at odds with the science and the whole area of geometric optics appears to be irrelevant.

As well as ignoring the findings of science flat earthers constantly make pronouncements about subjects they can know nothing about apart from what conventional science has given them. Astronomy is a classic case and especially the study of distant objects like pulsars, quasars and other distant objects like exo planets.  Give the fact that the study of these objects requires specialised observatories, some of which are in orbit, this does not stop flat earthers making pronouncements about these objects based on zero data.

Even the study of our nearest star, and  the wealth of scientific output produced from all the solar observatories is ignored by flat earthers. Itís all ignored in favour of their own evidence free ideas, many of which can be read in your repository.  You constantly ask for your collected flat earth ideas to be taken seriously, but how can they?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2019, 04:11:58 AM »
What you are really saying is science can be ignored if the results donít match your world view. I always like dealing with reality and that it seams is where we part company.
No, I'm saying the reason science is, y'know, science, is because evidence of it can be given. Literally no one mentioned ignoring results. The problem is the idea that those results can only ever point to one idea, which must be followed and defended religiously. That's not science.
RET can take a little competition. If someone can come up with a model that explains said observations, broadly speaking, then just repeating that it's impossible is the height of pointlessness. Again, science is science because of evidence. Providing that is always going to be easy. The problem, again, is insisting that the evidence can only point to one thing; that's never the case, and acting like that does nothing but encorage the FE impression that we're all just brainwashed sheeple. If you want to argue that it's impossible, you need to take the time to look at what FET actually predicts we'd observe, and then see how that lines up with observation, rather than jamming RE predictions in with it and complaining the ugly mishmash you created on the spot doesn't work.

Or, of course, you could not bother. Something can be rejected for lack of evidence, you don't need to try to argue that it's impossible. It's when you do that however, that you need to actually be honest about what you're criticising. I have no idea what you think you're achieving when you act the way you do. It's certainly not convincing anyone, nor is it informing anyone of anything they don't already know.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2019, 06:41:30 AM »
What you are really saying is science can be ignored if the results donít match your world view. I always like dealing with reality and that it seams is where we part company.
No, I'm saying the reason science is, y'know, science, is because evidence of it can be given.

I remember you telling me on several occasions that my arguments should be based on what flat earthers consider valid evidence.  Which is certainly skirting what Lonegranger said.

Quote
Literally no one mentioned ignoring results.

Is arbitrarily dismissing evidence as fake allowed?  Because that seems to cover anything and everything related to space.

Quote
The problem is the idea that those results can only ever point to one idea, which must be followed and defended religiously. That's not science.

Itís not religion.  Itís an absurd amount of evidence from multiple fields all pointing to the same obvious conclusion.

Trying to overturn such fundamentally basic established science requires evidence to the contrary.  And flat earthers have none.

Quote
RET can take a little competition. If someone can come up with a model that explains said observations, broadly speaking, then just repeating that it's impossible is the height of pointlessness.

And no such model currently exists to my knowledge.

Quote
Again, science is science because of evidence. Providing that is always going to be easy. The problem, again, is insisting that the evidence can only point to one thing; that's never the case, and acting like that does nothing but encorage the FE impression that we're all just brainwashed sheeple. If you want to argue that it's impossible, you need to take the time to look at what FET actually predicts we'd observe, and then see how that lines up with observation, rather than jamming RE predictions in with it and complaining the ugly mishmash you created on the spot doesn't work.

There are no flat earth predictions.  Despite your insistence that there are bona fide flat earth models out there somewhere to explain all our observations, youíve never been able to link to a simple mathematical model that actually describes any single phenomenon.  It all looks like a few buzz words and zero effort to me. 

Quote
Or, of course, you could not bother. Something can be rejected for lack of evidence, you don't need to try to argue that it's impossible. It's when you do that however, that you need to actually be honest about what you're criticising. I have no idea what you think you're achieving when you act the way you do. It's certainly not convincing anyone, nor is it informing anyone of anything they don't already know.

Not bothering seems to perfectly describe flat earth ďscienceĒ.

Why do you bother?

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2019, 08:18:57 AM »

RET can take a little competition.
There is no such thing as "Round Earth Theory", that's the issue.  There are no unversities with "Round Earth Studies" or journals called "Round Earth Investigation".  No professional scientists are trying to work out the shape of the planet.  It's not a theory, it's an established fact.

Quote
If someone can come up with a model that explains said observations, broadly speaking, then just repeating that it's impossible is the height of pointlessness.
The entire forum and debate is "the height of pointlessness", including your input.  Unless you think there is some kind of point to this?   I mean, what would you say the point of your white knighting is?

Quote
you need to take the time to look at what FET actually predicts we'd observe
Across the flattie "community" there is almost no agreement on what we should observe.  I suppose they agree that we should observe a flat earth.  Yet when we look at one of the photos of the planet taken every day by weather satellites it's clearly a sphere.  Which means every flattie has to introduce some ludicrous conspiracy.  And that's the issue - FET isn't a scientific theory, it's a conspriacy theory.

Quote
I have no idea what you think you're achieving when you act the way you do. It's certainly not convincing anyone, nor is it informing anyone of anything they don't already know.
Pot meet kettle.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2019, 08:34:26 AM »
I remember you telling me on several occasions that my arguments should be based on what flat earthers consider valid evidence.  Which is certainly skirting what Lonegranger said.
...It's also how debates work. If a FEer tried to convince you by appealing to laevorotatory subquarks without providing any reason to accept them, would that contribute anything to a discussion?
If you think something should be accepted as evidence, like space travel, which FEers object to, don't just assert that it's accurate. Give some actual reason for it, and bonus points if it's not the same basic things from the same discussion that's been rehashed a hundred times.

You are the one who chooses to argue against it. You don't have to do that. No one has to. If you want to reject FET, and justify your rejection, all you need to do is point to the lack of supporting evidence. That's it. When you decide that's not enough, when you decide that actually you want to go further and show that it can't function (something which most of science just doesn't bother with, for the record) then yes, you have to engage with FET on its terms, not on yours. Otherwise you aren't showing anything about FET, you're just saying that it's incompatible with RET. That's not news.
You don't have to ignore science, you don't have to change your point of view... You just need to learn how science actually works, and how dependent on context and underpinning theory it is. Science isn't a list of facts, science is a process by which we determine those facts. The process is what matters, not the conclusion. That's what I mean when I talk about religiously clinging to something; if all you care about is the statements of fact, that's when it becomes religion. Science is the means by which we actually find out the truth. Expecting you to actually be able to justify your claims is science.

Object FEers don't justify theirs all you want, that's fine, but that's also no excuse for you to not do the same when you are the one who starts making claims. Again, reject FET based on lack of evidence, sure, but that is not the same as taking the utterly unnecessary step of choosing to argue against it. All you do when you refuse to do that, especially when you have centuries of knowledge to draw upon just a google away, is give the impression REers need to lie and use cheap tactics to defend their position. Nothing I say is for the benefit of FET, it's for the benefit of your bloody credibility. Don't blame me for the fact you apparently don't care about that.

Quote
Why do you bother?
Because this is a forum with other people on. It should be vaguely enjoyable rather than any remotely interesting discussion getting steamrollered by users that just come across as mind-numbingly insecure and utterly tedious.

And that's the issue - FET isn't a scientific theory, it's a conspriacy theory.
If you believe that, start objecting to the users that try to engage with it on scientific grounds. No one makes them except them. If they've decided that's the path they want to take, it shouldn't be controversial to expect them to actually use science.
If you want to reject it as a conspiracy theory, by all means. I've said words to that effect several times over. My issue is with the people that aren't content with that, and decide to go a step further while providing nothing significant beyond insistence. All that does is encourage the impression that RET only exists because we're brainwashed. If anything, that's what I dislike. I'm not 'white-knighting,' I'm scrabbling desperately and apparently futilely to try and point out that the fact that the Earth is round and the supporting evidence for that is solid enough that you don't need this sheer, ridiculous level of defensiveness at the most minor slight.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2019, 03:21:10 PM »
What you are really saying is science can be ignored if the results donít match your world view. I always like dealing with reality and that it seams is where we part company.
No, I'm saying the reason science is, y'know, science, is because evidence of it can be given. Literally no one mentioned ignoring results. The problem is the idea that those results can only ever point to one idea, which must be followed and defended religiously. That's not science.
RET can take a little competition. If someone can come up with a model that explains said observations, broadly speaking, then just repeating that it's impossible is the height of pointlessness. Again, science is science because of evidence. Providing that is always going to be easy. The problem, again, is insisting that the evidence can only point to one thing; that's never the case, and acting like that does nothing but encorage the FE impression that we're all just brainwashed sheeple. If you want to argue that it's impossible, you need to take the time to look at what FET actually predicts we'd observe, and then see how that lines up with observation, rather than jamming RE predictions in with it and complaining the ugly mishmash you created on the spot doesn't work.

Or, of course, you could not bother. Something can be rejected for lack of evidence, you don't need to try to argue that it's impossible. It's when you do that however, that you need to actually be honest about what you're criticising. I have no idea what you think you're achieving when you act the way you do. It's certainly not convincing anyone, nor is it informing anyone of anything they don't already know.

Firstly there is no competition in science, your ideas are either right or wrong. Itís pretty digital where it comes to science.

Using Ďbrainwashingí as a term for following science fact is rather weak and a pretty weak sideswipe, I would rather call it being enlightened. Itís one of those desperate reactions flat earthers use as they have no science to backup what they believe and as a result attempt to belittle science in a vain attempt to level the playing field. Their only option is to ridicule the world of academia and call educated people sheep! Letís face facts for one moment, all flat earth ideas, bar none, are all based on no evidence whatsoever. Itís this simple fact that makes educated people discount what flat earth belief is offering.

Iím not trying to convince anyone, Iím trying to point out to you the reasons why some people donít take seriously what flat earthers have to say.

Again if we take the old chestnut of the sun. Science tells us a number of things about our sun. All the facts and figures have been gathered over a number of years by thousands of scientist and astronomers who all worked professionally in that area making use of a variety of solar observatories. From all their research a good understanding of the sun and itís workings have been arrived at that appears to stand up to scientific scrutiny. If you read the latest research there appears to be a general agreement amongst all astronomers as to the sun and itís workings.   Then we have the flat earth brigade, who have no access to any solar observatory, have not carried out any credible research and yet make comment as to the nature and make up of the sun based on nothing more than wild speculation. You appear to think that this flat earth view on the sun should be taken seriously! The question Iím asking you is why? When their ideas are based on nothing credible.

You talk about achieving something. I could ask you the same. What do you imagine you are achieving by gathering together a bunch of ideas that are based on no more than idle speculation. What is itís purpose? Do you imagine people should actually give the time of day to things like the Duel Earth?

Let make it quite clear Iím not bashing the flat earth people, itís the ideas they put forward, as people they could possibly be quite ok, their ideas on the other hand are, totally unscientific and pretty much bollocks.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2019, 03:31:16 PM »
The following video has everthing to do with the main points of the OP. "Shadows and light"  It's satire, but it makes a lot of sense.


On The Level Flooring Company - Pilot Ep1

The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they canít actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2019, 03:43:32 PM »
You talk about achieving something. I could ask you the same. What do you imagine you are achieving by gathering together a bunch of ideas that are based on no more than idle speculation. What is itís purpose? Do you imagine people should actually give the time of day to things like the Duel Earth?
It's fun. Once again, I do not expect you to believe any of it, I don't believe it, but puzzling things like that out's enjoyable. Plus, on a greater, non-personal level, it's honest. It's an easy reference for people that want to actually make claims about FET, because now they can take the radical step of knowing what they're talking about. For FEers, it's an indication that RET doesn't need to hide behind evasion and cheap tactics and lies, something far too many RE users apparently don't believe. For REers, it's a way to mount an informed argument if that's the path they choose to take.
You don't have to take it seriously. No one's making you. But when you do decide to start talking about the contents of FE models, all you accomplish is embarrassing yourself if you go in utterly uninformed, and that's the best case scenario. Worst case is you just torpedo the credibility of REers in general by making it look like we really do just have nothing.

If you want to reject FET based on lack of evidence, by all means do so. Honestly that's an attitude that really needs more defence here, and in general, far too many people can't wrap their heads around the concept of 'there's no evidence to support this' being the scientific death knell, they always look for 'this is impossible because ____' and that's how misinformation spreads. People want a stronger claim than what's often feasibly possible.
The kind of users that actively get in the way of discussion with 'there's no evidence' is just silly mind you, it comes off as insecure and is utterly pointless, but as far as a reason to reject goes, it's sound.
It's when you decide that, for some reason, that's not enough and you want to point out flaws with, say, how FEers explain the Sun, that you need to start having a clue what you're talking about. And yes, that goes for knowing FET as well. No one expects you to take it seriously (and really, when you're in a thread which appears to now be about how REers give a terrible impression, outright lying about something I've said explicitly several times over in this thread alone isn't doing you any favours) but you need claims to be relevant to it. If someone believes, for example, satellites are part of a conspiracy, then trying to show they're wrong by appealing to readings satellites have taken of the Sun objectively lacks any logic whatsoever. Either take a different tack, or justify the unwieldiness of such a conspiracy, otherwise you aren't actually pointing out a problem in what they believe. You're just saying it's different. Insistence alone does not make an argument, nor does ignorance.

You can argue awfully for the correct conclusion. Arguments are better when they are informed. It honestly boggles the mind that those are statements I need to defend here, and defend from REers no less, the self-proclaimed champions of rationality and reason. Is it any wonder FEers never actually get convinced by the standard of discussion on this site?

Quote
Iím not trying to convince anyone, Iím trying to point out to you the reasons why some people donít take seriously what flat earthers have to say.
And then we come back to this. Again, why? What's the point of that? Is it fun for you to say the same things over and over and just piss everyone else off? Do you think it's fun for anyone else? Do you think it tells anyone anything they don't already know?

*

sokarul

  • 18795
  • Extra Racist
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2019, 07:46:10 PM »
The following video has everthing to do with the main points of the OP. "Shadows and light"  It's satire, but it makes a lot of sense.


On The Level Flooring Company - Pilot Ep1



Judging by the video title they donít understand what level actually is.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2019, 11:49:22 PM »
The following video has everthing to do with the main points of the OP. "Shadows and light"  It's satire, but it makes a lot of sense.


On The Level Flooring Company - Pilot Ep1



I think both the video and your statement say more about the way flat earthers will clutch at any passing straw and be willing to avoid the truth no matter what.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2019, 12:16:51 AM »
You talk about achieving something. I could ask you the same. What do you imagine you are achieving by gathering together a bunch of ideas that are based on no more than idle speculation. What is itís purpose? Do you imagine people should actually give the time of day to things like the Duel Earth?
It's fun. Once again, I do not expect you to believe any of it, I don't believe it, but puzzling things like that out's enjoyable. Plus, on a greater, non-personal level, it's honest. It's an easy reference for people that want to actually make claims about FET, because now they can take the radical step of knowing what they're talking about. For FEers, it's an indication that RET doesn't need to hide behind evasion and cheap tactics and lies, something far too many RE users apparently don't believe. For REers, it's a way to mount an informed argument if that's the path they choose to take.
You don't have to take it seriously. No one's making you. But when you do decide to start talking about the contents of FE models, all you accomplish is embarrassing yourself if you go in utterly uninformed, and that's the best case scenario. Worst case is you just torpedo the credibility of REers in general by making it look like we really do just have nothing.

If you want to reject FET based on lack of evidence, by all means do so. Honestly that's an attitude that really needs more defence here, and in general, far too many people can't wrap their heads around the concept of 'there's no evidence to support this' being the scientific death knell, they always look for 'this is impossible because ____' and that's how misinformation spreads. People want a stronger claim than what's often feasibly possible.
The kind of users that actively get in the way of discussion with 'there's no evidence' is just silly mind you, it comes off as insecure and is utterly pointless, but as far as a reason to reject goes, it's sound.
It's when you decide that, for some reason, that's not enough and you want to point out flaws with, say, how FEers explain the Sun, that you need to start having a clue what you're talking about. And yes, that goes for knowing FET as well. No one expects you to take it seriously (and really, when you're in a thread which appears to now be about how REers give a terrible impression, outright lying about something I've said explicitly several times over in this thread alone isn't doing you any favours) but you need claims to be relevant to it. If someone believes, for example, satellites are part of a conspiracy, then trying to show they're wrong by appealing to readings satellites have taken of the Sun objectively lacks any logic whatsoever. Either take a different tack, or justify the unwieldiness of such a conspiracy, otherwise you aren't actually pointing out a problem in what they believe. You're just saying it's different. Insistence alone does not make an argument, nor does ignorance.

You can argue awfully for the correct conclusion. Arguments are better when they are informed. It honestly boggles the mind that those are statements I need to defend here, and defend from REers no less, the self-proclaimed champions of rationality and reason. Is it any wonder FEers never actually get convinced by the standard of discussion on this site?

Quote
Iím not trying to convince anyone, Iím trying to point out to you the reasons why some people donít take seriously what flat earthers have to say.
And then we come back to this. Again, why? What's the point of that? Is it fun for you to say the same things over and over and just piss everyone else off? Do you think it's fun for anyone else? Do you think it tells anyone anything they don't already know?

Puzzle! There is no puzzle.
Knowing what they are talking about! Now that is funny!

I love the way you sideline evidence and view it as some kind of irritant in any debate. The truth is really some kind of bitch if you want to believe in any of the multiple flat earth ideas, thatís for sure.

You sure want your cake and want to both eat and have it at the same time as regards discussing any issue. 

You talk about data derived from satellites as lacking logic! Are you saying all FE arguments  should be ring fenced due to FE types being upset by satellites as it destroys their arguments in one fell swoop! Regarding the sun for a moment, there are over 30 ground based solar observatories that will tell same story as one sailing through space.

You speak about being informed....show me just one flat earth belief that is based on being informed! Thatís just another example of FE double talk. If all the debates on this forum had to carried out by people who were informed they would be precious few posts. How much of the content in your collection is based on being informed?

Defending the indefensible is not easy. Defending the sun being small and near is for one a difficult prospect!

Pissing off people by dealing with the truth and reality is sure a bummer especially when using informed reasoning. You have to make your mind up. If you want a debate based on science then letís stick to the facts. On the other hand if you want your debates to have no such rules then say so. You canít mix the two and cry foul when your protagonist wheels in big guns loaded with, double 00 factual scientific buckshot.

Fun...I donít think itís fun when the arguments get personal, let just stick to proven facts. Or if you want we could just make shit up! What would you prefer?


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2019, 03:49:43 AM »
I love the way you sideline evidence and view it as some kind of irritant in any debate. The truth is really some kind of bitch if you want to believe in any of the multiple flat earth ideas, thatís for sure.
S...sideline evidence?
I brought it front and centre by pointing out that the lack of it alone should be talked about more as a valid, entirely sound, even preferrable reason to reject something. I also pointed out that more of it should be provided; a source is not inherently reliable, just saying it is, is basically pointless. if you can take the time to provide the evidence that it needs to be accurate, however...
I'm not 'sidelining' evidence, I'm expecting you to actually provide it should you choose to go that route. Don't get mad when you get held to actual standards of logic.

Quote
You talk about data derived from satellites as lacking logic!
...
You speak about being informed....show me just one flat earth belief that is based on being informed! Thatís just another example of FE double talk. If all the debates on this forum had to carried out by people who were informed they would be precious few posts. How much of the content in your collection is based on being informed?
So, tell me, honestly, when you lie this openly what do you think you do except make FEers feel more confident that their position is strong? Like, you have centuries of work to draw from, nothing I'm saying makes objecting to FET any harder for you, and if anything it helps you make sound refutations, but you still feel the need to resort to pretty explicit dishonesty. Cheap tricks don't make you look smart. They make you look desperate. Literally all you are going to achieve with that is strengthen FEers, and for anyone who comes to this site that's on the fence, they'll see you and assume those tactics when you're the one that ought to have the massive advantage in debate means you're compensating.
You should not need any of this rubbish. We seem to be agreed RET is easily the strongest theory, and far and away has more in support of it than any FE model, so why the hell do you need to lie for it?!

I did not say data derived from satellites 'lacked logic.' I said appealing to them when discussing a model that rejects them is something that is going to be ignored, and that you should take the time to actually demonstrate how we know satellites exist if that's the route you want to go. I also said that if you're trying to find the holes in a model, knowing what that model contains very much helps, and instead of an honest response to one of the simplest, most uncontroversial statements out there you decided to opt for a bit of wordplay and trickery just so you could make a superior remark.

If you want to use science, then as you say, use it. Don't throw a tantrum when someone expects you to do so. Science is not endlessly asserting the same few things, science is the way by which those things are proven. Show the evidence, don't just say it's right. Why is that something you want to object to?

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2019, 02:27:01 PM »
I love the way you sideline evidence and view it as some kind of irritant in any debate. The truth is really some kind of bitch if you want to believe in any of the multiple flat earth ideas, thatís for sure.
S...sideline evidence?
I brought it front and centre by pointing out that the lack of it alone should be talked about more as a valid, entirely sound, even preferrable reason to reject something. I also pointed out that more of it should be provided; a source is not inherently reliable, just saying it is, is basically pointless. if you can take the time to provide the evidence that it needs to be accurate, however...
I'm not 'sidelining' evidence, I'm expecting you to actually provide it should you choose to go that route. Don't get mad when you get held to actual standards of logic.

Quote
You talk about data derived from satellites as lacking logic!
...
You speak about being informed....show me just one flat earth belief that is based on being informed! Thatís just another example of FE double talk. If all the debates on this forum had to carried out by people who were informed they would be precious few posts. How much of the content in your collection is based on being informed?
So, tell me, honestly, when you lie this openly what do you think you do except make FEers feel more confident that their position is strong? Like, you have centuries of work to draw from, nothing I'm saying makes objecting to FET any harder for you, and if anything it helps you make sound refutations, but you still feel the need to resort to pretty explicit dishonesty. Cheap tricks don't make you look smart. They make you look desperate. Literally all you are going to achieve with that is strengthen FEers, and for anyone who comes to this site that's on the fence, they'll see you and assume those tactics when you're the one that ought to have the massive advantage in debate means you're compensating.
You should not need any of this rubbish. We seem to be agreed RET is easily the strongest theory, and far and away has more in support of it than any FE model, so why the hell do you need to lie for it?!

I did not say data derived from satellites 'lacked logic.' I said appealing to them when discussing a model that rejects them is something that is going to be ignored, and that you should take the time to actually demonstrate how we know satellites exist if that's the route you want to go. I also said that if you're trying to find the holes in a model, knowing what that model contains very much helps, and instead of an honest response to one of the simplest, most uncontroversial statements out there you decided to opt for a bit of wordplay and trickery just so you could make a superior remark.

If you want to use science, then as you say, use it. Don't throw a tantrum when someone expects you to do so. Science is not endlessly asserting the same few things, science is the way by which those things are proven. Show the evidence, don't just say it's right. Why is that something you want to object to?

Mad? who's getting mad? why do flat earther always refer to people who disagree with them as being angry? Is this taught at flat earth school in debating 101?

Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.

Challange 1...pick one of your Flat Earth ideas lay out the evidence and demonstrate how it can be classed as having been arrived by 'being informed'.

I know satellites exist as I've seen them flying overhead in the night sky as predicted by an app. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the industry.  I think its more pertinent if you can explain to me why you imagine they don't exist. I think the burden of proof is on you as the evidence for their existence is overwhelming.

Challange 2 provide me with some hard evidence that disproves GPS along with all the other flavors from the Russians, Chinese and us Europeans. Let's not forget about satellite TV, weaather sats, google maps and all the satellites we can see whizzing through the night sky as predicted by any number of downloadable apps.  All the launches that amount to almost three every week are also a bit of a clue! You explain all this away without resorting to the C-word and id be happy to listen.

Wordplay and trickery? Sorry, you have lost me....where is the trickery. I'm just trying to deal with facts and reality.

I'd be well open to listening to a flat earth idea if it came with convincing proof. To date I've seen nothing on this site that falls into that category. Perhaps you could prove me wrong by offering up some facts back by hard evidence.....convince me I'm wrong.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2019, 02:40:35 PM »
Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.
Misrepresenting them so blatantly on the other hand very much is. This is just tiresome. If you don't give a damn about what someone has to say, why do you even pretend to engage with them?

Once again: I am not a FEer. I am not saying FET is accurate. I am not asking you to believe in or accept the slightest aspect of FET.
I am however vainly trying to have you stop embarrassing yourself when you straw man yourself into oblivion like this. Insist FE arguments are wrong all you want, but if all you do is ignore them rather than put in the effort required to actually address and so refute them, all you do is lend credence to the idea that RET is on its last legs. It isn't. Stop acting like it is.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2019, 03:06:15 PM »
Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.
Misrepresenting them so blatantly on the other hand very much is. This is just tiresome. If you don't give a damn about what someone has to say, why do you even pretend to engage with them?

Once again: I am not a FEer. I am not saying FET is accurate. I am not asking you to believe in or accept the slightest aspect of FET.
I am however vainly trying to have you stop embarrassing yourself when you straw man yourself into oblivion like this. Insist FE arguments are wrong all you want, but if all you do is ignore them rather than put in the effort required to actually address and so refute them, all you do is lend credence to the idea that RET is on its last legs. It isn't. Stop acting like it is.

There you go again resorting to personal attacks.....why do you keep doing that? This is supposedly a debate, why not use sensible well constructed arguments rather than getting tetchy?

No Strawmen around here. Iíve simply asked you to hit me with some strong arguments that will convince me..........looks like youíre not up for that.