Distance to Venus, the sun, and beyond to STICKS!

Does anyone in the FE community agree with the above logical progression of flat earth belief developing into a necessary conspiracy?

I remained stunned, and terrified. I sincerely hope for an opposing view and some illumination as to why my "stick" and sun thesis may not be accurate from a member of the FE community.

Why should a possibility be above consideration a priori? That seems like the opposite of a scientific statement.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2020, 09:42:57 PM

When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

So if I dropped a lead ball, inside my house, or perhaps down the stairwell of some tall building, what other trajectory would it take and why?

Air resistance and wind-speed, horizontal motion imparted by the dropping with a magnitude overwhelmed by the increasing downwards force... Bishop is quite right to say it wouldn't be a straight line, just one that can be approximated as straight.

Quote from: Layperson on July 23, 2020, 05:45:58 AM

Does anyone in the FE community agree with the above logical progression of flat earth belief developing into a necessary conspiracy?

I remained stunned, and terrified. I sincerely hope for an opposing view and some illumination as to why my "stick" and sun thesis may not be accurate from a member of the FE community.

Why should a possibility be above consideration a priori? That seems like the opposite of a scientific statement.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 30, 2020, 06:54:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2020, 09:42:57 PM

When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

So if I dropped a lead ball, inside my house, or perhaps down the stairwell of some tall building, what other trajectory would it take and why?

Air resistance and wind-speed, horizontal motion imparted by the dropping with a magnitude overwhelmed by the increasing downwards force... Bishop is quite right to say it wouldn't be a straight line, just one that can be approximated as straight.

YEs but he's saying much more than that. He's saying that the very basics of physics is wrong because a dropped ball has a lot of influences working on it.

Well of course it does. Everything does.

The theory doesn't say that in nature everything goes straight and is never affected by anything. It says that hings go straight UNLESS affected by something. We happens to KNOW what those somethings are. Gravity, reflections, refraction. 

We certainly can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that light DOES go straight unless affected by another force, and have not seen ANY indication that there are unknown forces (like Electromagnetic Acceleration and the Bishop constant) at play. Light behaves exactly as we predict and observe.

He's trying to throw doubt into all of physics because you HAVE to do that if you follow his theories, because they break everything we know about the universe.

So yeah, dropping a lead ball is affected by wind or magnets nearby or someone hitting it with a bat. None of this proves phycis wrong, it proves it right because it all happens as expected, and doesn't break the laws of physics.

YEs but he's saying much more than that. He's saying that the very basics of physics is wrong because a dropped ball has a lot of influences working on it.

Well of course it does. Everything does.

This is the important part.
Everything does. You bring up Newton's First Law, that everything travels in a straight line unless something acts upon it, but everything always has something acting upon it, no matter how slight. Your lead ball has the force imparted by the simple act of dropping it, to say nothing of everything else. This isn't saying that physics is wrong, this is saying that it is right.
An object with no other influences upon it only exists in simplified models of a situation. It is not a realistic occurence. That is to say, it does not occur, it is just simpler to pretend it does sometimes.

Everything goes straight unless it is affected by another force, true, but it is simultaneously true that everything is always affected by multiple other forces.

I am content with breaking everything I know about the universe. It would be the height of arrogance to think we know all that can be known. Even the greatest geniuses throughout history would be expected to rethink their fundamentals if they were brought to the present day. Do you think yourself above them? I certainly don't think I am.

Quote from: JJA on August 15, 2020, 05:13:04 PM

YEs but he's saying much more than that. He's saying that the very basics of physics is wrong because a dropped ball has a lot of influences working on it.

Well of course it does. Everything does.

This is the important part.
Everything does. You bring up Newton's First Law, that everything travels in a straight line unless something acts upon it, but everything always has something acting upon it, no matter how slight. Your lead ball has the force imparted by the simple act of dropping it, to say nothing of everything else. This isn't saying that physics is wrong, this is saying that it is right.
An object with no other influences upon it only exists in simplified models of a situation. It is not a realistic occurence. That is to say, it does not occur, it is just simpler to pretend it does sometimes.

Everything goes straight unless it is affected by another force, true, but it is simultaneously true that everything is always affected by multiple other forces.

I am content with breaking everything I know about the universe. It would be the height of arrogance to think we know all that can be known. Even the greatest geniuses throughout history would be expected to rethink their fundamentals if they were brought to the present day. Do you think yourself above them? I certainly don't think I am.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

Scientists, and most people, me included would find it exiting and amazing to overturn all of physics and discover something new and better.

There would be dancing in the streets. Scientists, especially theoretical and experimental physicists would be literally drooling over all the new research and discoveries it would allow.

I'm not saying that light travels in a straight line because of some religions conviction, or because it scares me if it doesn't, or because I hate the idea of bendy light, or because I don't have an imagination. That's stupid.  I say it travels in a straight line because that's what the evidence shows. That's what we observe.

Of course I'm open to new possibilities. I want those possibilities!  But that doesn't mean I'm just going to agree that, sure, all of physics is wrong because Tom said so.  I want new things, but you have to show me evidence first.

Are light beams affected by invisible dragons? That would be cool. Can I meet one? Talk to it? Sounds fascinating. But don't expect me to hand over a down payment on a pet light dragon just because someone says they are real.

Scientists, and most people, me included would find it exiting and amazing to overturn all of physics and discover something new and better.

That's all very well to say in theory, but you have to ask what that would take. It is far easier for someone to say they could change their mind, than it is for someone to genuinely change their mind.

Quote from: JJA on August 15, 2020, 05:29:03 PM

Scientists, and most people, me included would find it exiting and amazing to overturn all of physics and discover something new and better.

That's all very well to say in theory, but you have to ask what that would take. It is far easier for someone to say they could change their mind, than it is for someone to genuinely change their mind.

It would be extremely easy.

I gain new experience every day. I learn new things every day. I learn stuff I thought I knew was wrong every day.

Gravity waves were theoretical, until they were shown to exist. I am not in denial about them because they are new.

Dinosaurs. So much about what we know about them has changed since I was a kid. Yet I don't stick to the old assumptions. I have no problem reading new discoveries and going, oh, cool.

If scientists tomorrow found a brand new force, one that never had been even hinted at, I'd be excited as heck.

I was around for the whole cold fusion mess.  I was as excited as everyone else, hoping to see it confirmed.  I was extremely disappointed when it just turned out to be a mechanical malfunction.  For a little while, it was like we are on the edge of a grand new age.  Sad.

It was only recently discovered that Neutrinos can change type all by themselves. This is cool.  I'm not shouting from the rooftops demanding scientists stop lying, that neutrinos can't change flavors because I wasn't taught that in school!  No, I accept it just fine.

New theories take time to be proven and accepted, that's as it should be. But once there is enough evidence, they are.

I'd believe the Earth was flat, if I was shown enough evidence that it was. I would love that.  It's just that so far, that evidence is zero.

New theories take time to be proven and accepted, that's as it should be. But once there is enough evidence, they are.

I'd believe the Earth was flat, if I was shown enough evidence that it was. I would love that.  It's just that so far, that evidence is zero.

What evidence? What is the requirement?
Claiming to be open is far more common than genuinely being open. You must have run into people like that time and again on the internet. More often than not, the people that claim the most to be open to anything and just wanting to hear the evidence/have a discussion are the ones that are least open to ever considering another point of view. Why is the same not true of scientists?

What if the evidence is in a form they cannot take, or goes against something long-established?

Quote from: JJA on August 15, 2020, 06:17:18 PM

New theories take time to be proven and accepted, that's as it should be. But once there is enough evidence, they are.

I'd believe the Earth was flat, if I was shown enough evidence that it was. I would love that.  It's just that so far, that evidence is zero.

What evidence? What is the requirement?
Claiming to be open is far more common than genuinely being open. You must have run into people like that time and again on the internet. More often than not, the people that claim the most to be open to anything and just wanting to hear the evidence/have a discussion are the ones that are least open to ever considering another point of view. Why is the same not true of scientists?

What if the evidence is in a form they cannot take, or goes against something long-established?

You seem incredulous that it's possible for me to open to new things.  Is that really so hard to imagine?  I gave plenty of examples in the post you quoted.  Scientists are open to new things too, why do you think they do research?  To find new things. That's the entire point. Look at everything we know now?  Know why we know it? Because scientists discovered it. All our technology and medicine and everything didn't just fall out of the sky in books, we learned it. There is a vast world of knowledge out there, and every single bit of it was new at one point. To say scientists, or humans are incapable of learning new things is just insane.

Einsteins Relativity goes against Newton's laws, which were long-established. It took some convincing, but it's now accepted. Scientists are more than willing to supplant old theories with new.

As for evidence they can't take, what does that even mean? If the evidence is no good, then nobody will accept it.

What evidence would I need to accept a flat Earth? To start with, how about anything at all?

I don't believe in magic talking fire breathing dragons because I have seen no evidence they exist. But introduce me to one, that would make me a believer.

Same goes for a flat Earth. I don't believe because I have seen nothing valid, and a million things to show the opposite.

Quote from: JJA on August 15, 2020, 05:29:03 PM

Scientists, and most people, me included would find it exiting and amazing to overturn all of physics and discover something new and better.

That's all very well to say in theory, but you have to ask what that would take. It is far easier for someone to say they could change their mind, than it is for someone to genuinely change their mind.

It is less likely to be an issue among scientists than among others. Science is littered with examples of where existing science has to be modified, and is accepted by scientists.  Most commonly, the "new" scientific information is an extension of the pre-existing scientific understanding (think how f=ma had to be modified to take into account relativistic velocities), not a complete upending, and it simply expands the base of understanding.

How might a scientist accept that the earth is flat?  Well if some scientists came up with new experimental results that show how the earth is really flat, but made to seem to us round and seem to us to behave as all other experiments show, and other scientists could replicate those new results, then the base of science understanding would expand.  And scientists would then believe we live on a flat earth that is made to appear as round.

That's what it would take to change a scientists mind about the true shape of the earth.

However that process does not work for Flat Earthers.  Experimental evidence is not enough to change their minds. Nothing can change their minds.

What if they were offered something other than experimental evidence? Would that be insufficient, then?

Almost everyone believes that they have an open mind, but they always have lines they will not cross. These lines can be about facts, statements they will never believe, but this isn't always the case. The most insidious and the most common kind is when people are wedded to motives of belief, that they are only open to something that can be shown in a specific way. If it is shown any other way, then it is rejected. You can believe yourself open to any fact, but it does not mean anything if you will only accept things that can be shown through limited means.

What if they were offered something other than experimental evidence? Would that be insufficient, then?

Almost everyone believes that they have an open mind, but they always have lines they will not cross. These lines can be about facts, statements they will never believe, but this isn't always the case. The most insidious and the most common kind is when people are wedded to motives of belief, that they are only open to something that can be shown in a specific way. If it is shown any other way, then it is rejected. You can believe yourself open to any fact, but it does not mean anything if you will only accept things that can be shown through limited means.

What exactly do you propose to use other than experimental evidence?  What 'other ways' are you talking about?

Got an example? Please provide one.

What limited means? I'll believe anything that can be experimentally shown and replicated.

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 16, 2020, 08:41:50 AM

What if they were offered something other than experimental evidence? Would that be insufficient, then?

Almost everyone believes that they have an open mind, but they always have lines they will not cross. These lines can be about facts, statements they will never believe, but this isn't always the case. The most insidious and the most common kind is when people are wedded to motives of belief, that they are only open to something that can be shown in a specific way. If it is shown any other way, then it is rejected. You can believe yourself open to any fact, but it does not mean anything if you will only accept things that can be shown through limited means.

What exactly do you propose to use other than experimental evidence?  What 'other ways' are you talking about?

Got an example? Please provide one.

What limited means? I'll believe anything that can be experimentally shown and replicated.

If the idea of believing in things for reasons and evidence other than experimental is something so alien to you, then I don't know how I could ever describe it. There are whole fields of discovery beyond the experimental that countless people dedicate their lives to.

Quote from: JJA on August 16, 2020, 08:56:04 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 16, 2020, 08:41:50 AM

What if they were offered something other than experimental evidence? Would that be insufficient, then?

Almost everyone believes that they have an open mind, but they always have lines they will not cross. These lines can be about facts, statements they will never believe, but this isn't always the case. The most insidious and the most common kind is when people are wedded to motives of belief, that they are only open to something that can be shown in a specific way. If it is shown any other way, then it is rejected. You can believe yourself open to any fact, but it does not mean anything if you will only accept things that can be shown through limited means.

What exactly do you propose to use other than experimental evidence?  What 'other ways' are you talking about?

Got an example? Please provide one.

What limited means? I'll believe anything that can be experimentally shown and replicated.

If the idea of believing in things for reasons and evidence other than experimental is something so alien to you, then I don't know how I could ever describe it. There are whole fields of discovery beyond the experimental that countless people dedicate their lives to.

And I'm asking for an example. How am I supposed to agree or disagree to some vague 'other kinds of evidence' question? That could be literally ANYTHING.

Show me an actual example, and I'll tell you my opinion.

What if the evidence is in a form they cannot take, or goes against something long-established?

What do you mean by "in a form they cannot take"?
Do you mean something like a person's claim based upon a vision they claim to have had?
If so, that isn't evidence.

As for going against something long established, do you mean like how Einsteinian relativity went against Newtonian/Gallian relativity?
Or how wave particle duality went against the very nature of what it meant to be a particle or a wave?
Or how light propagating through a vacuum went against the firmly established idea that all waves need a medium to propagate which lead some to cling to aether with many contradictory properties?
Or for more ancient examples, the evidence showing Earth was round, going against the established belief that Earth was flat; or the evidence that Earth was moving going against the established belief that Earth was the fixed centre of the universe?

So it has happened quite a bit in science.
It is a fundamental part of science.

You can believe yourself open to any fact, but it does not mean anything if you will only accept things that can be shown through limited means.

That depends upon what those limitations are.
If those limitations are just so that things can actually be shown, rather than just asserted, then that is still being open.
Not accepting unsubstantiated claims does not make someone close minded, no matter how much other people believe those claims.

It is when you start to dismiss evidence because it doesn't agree with your beliefs that you are close minded.

There are whole fields of discovery beyond the experimental that countless people dedicate their lives to.

Do you mean like the people in many contradictory religions that all think their religion is the one true religion and all the others are wrong?
If we actually accepted that as a valid way of determining what is true, then multiple contradictory religions would be accepted as true and your beliefs would contradict themselves.

Scientists use experimental evidence because it is what has been reliable, what can actually be used to find out the truth, even if it isn't the complete truth.
If you can provide an alternative which actually works, feel free to do so. Until then, I will continue with what works.

There are whole fields of discovery beyond the experimental that countless people dedicate their lives to.

Really?  Please name a few "fields of discovery" that actually produced a discovery that was not based on actual evidence. I can't think of any field of discovery that does not involve repeatable experiment and/or observation.  Even the soft sciences like human behavior have a lot of studies that produce evidence, upon which conclusions are based. They may not lead to 100% certain conclusive facts by their nature, but they are based on evidence.

So, no experimental evidence backed discoveries, interesting concept.  Absolutely wrong but interesting.  How to you prove something like that to another individual?  That's akin to having different minor gods to explain natural functions like rain.  When we didn't understand how the water got into the sky to fall down, we invented a reason based on no experimental evidence.  Once we learned the mechanism and then verified through repeatable experiments with evidence we realized there was no need for a rain god.  The experimental process is how we test our suppositions and we have to have evidence to support those experiments to others and, if you are truly honest, to yourself.

So, no experimental evidence backed discoveries, interesting concept.  Absolutely wrong but interesting.  How to you prove something like that to another individual?  That's akin to having different minor gods to explain natural functions like rain.  When we didn't understand how the water got into the sky to fall down, we invented a reason based on no experimental evidence.  Once we learned the mechanism and then verified through repeatable experiments with evidence we realized there was no need for a rain god.  The experimental process is how we test our suppositions and we have to have evidence to support those experiments to others and, if you are truly honest, to yourself.

It is a way, but monopolies are rarely considered a good thing. It's strange to insist that the most fundamental thing upon which we all depend must be one.
It can't even sustain itself. How do you confirm that experimental evidence works?

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 17, 2020, 04:47:18 AM

So, no experimental evidence backed discoveries, interesting concept.  Absolutely wrong but interesting.  How to you prove something like that to another individual?  That's akin to having different minor gods to explain natural functions like rain.  When we didn't understand how the water got into the sky to fall down, we invented a reason based on no experimental evidence.  Once we learned the mechanism and then verified through repeatable experiments with evidence we realized there was no need for a rain god.  The experimental process is how we test our suppositions and we have to have evidence to support those experiments to others and, if you are truly honest, to yourself.

It is a way, but monopolies are rarely considered a good thing. It's strange to insist that the most fundamental thing upon which we all depend must be one.
It can't even sustain itself. How do you confirm that experimental evidence works?

You keep saying this, and multiple people have asked you now to provide an example of non-evidence based research.

Please show us at least ONE real example of what you are talking about.

Otherwise you are just repeating "science bad" and "evidence bad" and not giving us any idea what your alternative is.

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:13:59 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 17, 2020, 04:47:18 AM

So, no experimental evidence backed discoveries, interesting concept.  Absolutely wrong but interesting.  How to you prove something like that to another individual?  That's akin to having different minor gods to explain natural functions like rain.  When we didn't understand how the water got into the sky to fall down, we invented a reason based on no experimental evidence.  Once we learned the mechanism and then verified through repeatable experiments with evidence we realized there was no need for a rain god.  The experimental process is how we test our suppositions and we have to have evidence to support those experiments to others and, if you are truly honest, to yourself.

It is a way, but monopolies are rarely considered a good thing. It's strange to insist that the most fundamental thing upon which we all depend must be one.
It can't even sustain itself. How do you confirm that experimental evidence works?

You keep saying this, and multiple people have asked you now to provide an example of non-evidence based research.

Please show us at least ONE real example of what you are talking about.

Otherwise you are just repeating "science bad" and "evidence bad" and not giving us any idea what your alternative is.

I am not saying evidence and science are bad, just that they ar eonly one path.

How do you know that evidence-based research works?

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:21:59 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:13:59 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 17, 2020, 04:47:18 AM

So, no experimental evidence backed discoveries, interesting concept.  Absolutely wrong but interesting.  How to you prove something like that to another individual?  That's akin to having different minor gods to explain natural functions like rain.  When we didn't understand how the water got into the sky to fall down, we invented a reason based on no experimental evidence.  Once we learned the mechanism and then verified through repeatable experiments with evidence we realized there was no need for a rain god.  The experimental process is how we test our suppositions and we have to have evidence to support those experiments to others and, if you are truly honest, to yourself.

It is a way, but monopolies are rarely considered a good thing. It's strange to insist that the most fundamental thing upon which we all depend must be one.
It can't even sustain itself. How do you confirm that experimental evidence works?

You keep saying this, and multiple people have asked you now to provide an example of non-evidence based research.

Please show us at least ONE real example of what you are talking about.

Otherwise you are just repeating "science bad" and "evidence bad" and not giving us any idea what your alternative is.

I am not saying evidence and science are bad, just that they ar eonly one path.

How do you know that evidence-based research works?

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

What if they were offered something other than experimental evidence? Would that be insufficient, then?

This is one of the times you mentioned it.  Please give a real example of non-experimental evidence.

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.
Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Quote from: Stash on August 17, 2020, 08:22:02 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Cell phones.  Medicine.  Airplanes.  That's why I think it works. Where do you think they all came from? Dreams?  No, science. Evidence based science.

And why do you keep avoiding the question?  You can't claim to have an alternative to science based, evidence based research if you never even give a single example of what it is or has accomplished.

So please, just answer the question.  Give an example.

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Stash on August 17, 2020, 08:22:02 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Cell phones.  Medicine.  Airplanes.  That's why I think it works. Where do you think they all came from? Dreams?  No, science. Evidence based science.

And why do you keep avoiding the question?  You can't claim to have an alternative to science based, evidence based research if you never even give a single example of what it is or has accomplished.

So please, just answer the question.  Give an example.

This is the example.
You use evidence to defend the merits of evidence. In any other field, you would brush that off as circular reasoning and reject it. Evidence works because we can trust evidence, and we can trust evidence because evidence works. The very foundation of evidence-based research is what you would dismiss if it were any other topic.
What has non-evidence accomplished? Everything.

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 08:32:28 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Stash on August 17, 2020, 08:22:02 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Cell phones.  Medicine.  Airplanes.  That's why I think it works. Where do you think they all came from? Dreams?  No, science. Evidence based science.

And why do you keep avoiding the question?  You can't claim to have an alternative to science based, evidence based research if you never even give a single example of what it is or has accomplished.

So please, just answer the question.  Give an example.

This is the example.
You use evidence to defend the merits of evidence. In any other field, you would brush that off as circular reasoning and reject it. Evidence works because we can trust evidence, and we can trust evidence because evidence works. The very foundation of evidence-based research is what you would dismiss if it were any other topic.
What has non-evidence accomplished? Everything.

So you're still going to dodge the question?

I suspect it's because you don't actually have any examples of what your 'alternative evidence' methods have produced.

So you can stop claiming they even exist, if you can't bring up even a single example.

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 08:35:21 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 08:32:28 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Stash on August 17, 2020, 08:22:02 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Cell phones.  Medicine.  Airplanes.  That's why I think it works. Where do you think they all came from? Dreams?  No, science. Evidence based science.

And why do you keep avoiding the question?  You can't claim to have an alternative to science based, evidence based research if you never even give a single example of what it is or has accomplished.

So please, just answer the question.  Give an example.

This is the example.
You use evidence to defend the merits of evidence. In any other field, you would brush that off as circular reasoning and reject it. Evidence works because we can trust evidence, and we can trust evidence because evidence works. The very foundation of evidence-based research is what you would dismiss if it were any other topic.
What has non-evidence accomplished? Everything.

So you're still going to dodge the question?

I suspect it's because you don't actually have any examples of what your 'alternative evidence' methods have produced.

So you can stop claiming they even exist, if you can't bring up even a single example.

What would you call it if not an example?
You cannot base evidence on itself. Evidence itself requires non-evidence to function. Anything else is circular.

I'm giving an example you will accept.

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 09:00:36 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 08:35:21 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 08:32:28 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 08:25:37 AM

Quote from: Stash on August 17, 2020, 08:22:02 AM

Quote from: SergeantPepper on August 17, 2020, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

You keep saying there are alternatives to evidence based research.

Please give a real example of another path.

I am.

You are what? Where did you give a real example of alternatives to evidence based research? Did I miss it?

Why do you believe evidence-based research works?

Cell phones.  Medicine.  Airplanes.  That's why I think it works. Where do you think they all came from? Dreams?  No, science. Evidence based science.

And why do you keep avoiding the question?  You can't claim to have an alternative to science based, evidence based research if you never even give a single example of what it is or has accomplished.

So please, just answer the question.  Give an example.

This is the example.
You use evidence to defend the merits of evidence. In any other field, you would brush that off as circular reasoning and reject it. Evidence works because we can trust evidence, and we can trust evidence because evidence works. The very foundation of evidence-based research is what you would dismiss if it were any other topic.
What has non-evidence accomplished? Everything.

So you're still going to dodge the question?

I suspect it's because you don't actually have any examples of what your 'alternative evidence' methods have produced.

So you can stop claiming they even exist, if you can't bring up even a single example.

What would you call it if not an example?
You cannot base evidence on itself. Evidence itself requires non-evidence to function. Anything else is circular.

I'm giving an example you will accept.

Uh, no, that's not an example.

Here is an example: Semiconductors, the bases of all our computer technology.

The investigation of semiconductors is well documented, especially by Bell Labs who produced the first working prototype.

They explored how electrical signals propagated through semiconductor materials, and how different impurities and environmental effects changed them.  They performed experiments, recorded evidence, improved their predictions and eventually produced a working transistor.

This is evidence based science.

What is your example? What product, idea or discovery was produced by non-evidence based methods and how?

Anything?

Uh, no, that's not an example.

Here is an example: Semiconductors, the bases of all our computer technology.

How were semiconductors arrived at without the evidence-based system?

Quote from: JJA on August 17, 2020, 09:24:39 AM

Uh, no, that's not an example.

Here is an example: Semiconductors, the bases of all our computer technology.

How were semiconductors arrived at without the evidence-based system?

They were arrived at WITH an evidence based system. That's my example of what evidence based does. An example to show you what you are being asked to provide for your side.

You need to provide an example of something done WITHOUT evidence.