Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...

  • 642 Replies
  • 53296 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #270 on: July 29, 2021, 07:13:39 AM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.
If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
Can you even read English?

Where did he say he got the best results?
Yet again, rather than even attempt to address what is said and deal with the issue at hand, you start off with a strawman and try to attack that to pretend you do no wrong.

Now you are looking really foolish. Photography by trial and error!
No, that would still be you.
Now even more so.
Plenty of things are done with trial and error. Why do you think people make prototypes?
The have an idea, design a prototype, trial it out, and fix errors found.

What you are implying is just plain ridiculous.
You mean what you are pretending I am implying, so you can pretend you are right.

You have clearly demonstrated by not revealing your secret methods
Again, they are not secret.
The experiments you can do to determine the shape of Earth have been discussed plenty, on this forum and elsewhere.

What you are falsely claiming is secrete is your fantasy idea of me claiming to have brand new, never before seen ones. But again, that is just your pathetic strawman to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Likewise, you have clearly demonstrated your completely inability to justify your claims by not revealing your proof that the moon is made of cheese.

You and others may CLAIM to be able to load up the software and start using it with no previous experience
So it is clear you also have no idea about designing software.
Do you know a hallmark of good software design? An intuitive interface where people can use it without needing to get training on it.
If you need to read manuals or have someone teach you how to use it, the software is crap.

It equates to the infinite monkeys banging out a version of Hamlet!, with you as the monkey!
Are you capable of making a single logical argument for once?
Do you know a big difference between me and those monkeys?
I can see if what I am doing is making progress towards the goal and adjust what I do accordingly.
The monkeys can't.

Since you like bringing up religion and creationists, what you are suggesting now is akin to a creationists argument against evolution; where the likelihood of any particular outcome coming to be, with all those parts, is so low it would never happen.

But with things like evolution, and a sentient individual analysing the results, they can selective keep good parts.

If you would like a better analogy, say you have 100 dice, and want to get all sixes. The monkeys just keep on rolling, until they do, with odds of getting all sixes as roughly 1 in 7*10^77, and it will take them roughly that many throws to get all sixes (i.e. that is the expected value). But me doing it, I'm smart enough to notice the sixes I do get, and not reroll them.
So I roll and get probably 16 or 16 sixes, and don't re-roll them. After the 14th roll, I would expect to only need to get 10 more, and be getting 1 or less each time, doing it a lot faster than your random monkeys.

So back to the camera and photoshop, the only limitation would be if I get stuck in a local maximum and need to leave that, getting worse, to get to the global maxmimum.
But again, this isn't about being the best, this is about getting something that works.

How much easier would it have been to read the camera manual, and consult a photography book.
How much easier would it be if you actually tried defending the claim and addressing the argument, rather than continually running off with these pathetic deflections?
Who gives a damn what would be easier.
This has no bearing on the argument at hand.
The argument is not that it is easiest to do it this way, but that it is possible to.
This is because the claim Brawndo made wasn't that it is EASIEST to consult the experts. Instead he claimed that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY is to just accept what an expert an SAYS EARTH IS!

And that claim is simply pure BS, and even though you claim he is right, you directly contradicted him and continually refuse to provide any justification for this claim, instead continually strawmanning and deflecting, trying to defend a different claim we didn't object to.

You guys crack me up with your anti-expert no standards stance. Just where is you bar of acceptability? It must hang quite low. Just tell whoever does a job for you next time that you will accept any result!

Trial and error, only if you happen to be a time wasting fool as everyone knows that is such an inefficient and the worst way to learn guaranteed to bring with it bad habits. Does reality never enter in to your world view? Experts are a good thing, expertise is a good thing. Im glad the world is not run by slap dash accept any old rubbish people like you.

Prototyping is a totally different activity. Making a prototype is where you attempt to break new ground and create something unique from a defined specification to solve a particular know problem or need, very different from taking a photograph!, which is far from new. Prototyping is part of a problem solving process done in a planned and systematic way. Not like your dial twirling hap hazard method of photography.

I really wonder at the experiment you have in mind for solving your problem, if they are anything like your approach to photography I would think again.
While we are on that topic, just what are those experiments? That burden must be really weighing you down! You say there are NOT secret, so what are they? please share. I take it they have come from your own fiddling about and not devised by someone who knew what they were doing?

Now the difference between you and the monkeys is a difficult call. You tell me!

Agreed good software design is important, though applications such as photoshop that have great depth and scope, 3D, Motion, Photography, Painting, Graphics and Web Design, ........you would just open it up and know exactly what to do guided by your intuition! Fat chance!

Let's stick to the central question and let's have you stating what the nature is of your experiment that apparently is not a secret. If its not a secret just say! Why keep holding it back. You explain what it is, if it works you win. What do you have to loose?


Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #271 on: July 29, 2021, 07:24:22 AM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two I’ve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.

So you opened up some stills in photoshop and fooled around blindly for a bit. What do you want a medal?

Engineers trial and error! Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that. Engineers unlike you are experts in their field and go about task in a systematic way using proven methods which are the antithesis of your unprofessional fooling around in photoshop. Engineers don't guess when designing a structure or system where a mistake could cost lives.

The real world is expert driven. What you have against that is bewildering. People like you who imagine they can acquire complex skills by fiddling around by trial and error and seriously deranged. Before you know where you are you'll be performing brain surgery through trial and error! Go for it. There are some people around here you could practice on !
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #272 on: July 29, 2021, 07:25:13 AM »
So you still don't have anything to say regarding how the position you are defending has been thoroughly dismantled then?

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #273 on: July 29, 2021, 07:49:55 AM »
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.

And how did you learn the basic geometry and maths? Did you teach yourself? Understanding an experiment and repeating it is one thing devising an original experiment is quite another thing. Try it and see how you get on with no assistance.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #274 on: July 29, 2021, 07:53:51 AM »
So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head. As a photoshop user and instructor I smell a little rat there. The use of unsharp mask is far from an obvious move. In fact using photoshop flying by the seat of your pants with no help or prior instruction I would say is a waste of time. As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?

I don't use Photoshop, there are lots of easier to use programs out there, and free too. I also don't find it odd at all to click on stuff you don't know the meaning of and see what it does. I don't need a book to tell me what filter X does. I just need to apply it and look. I'm sure there are tons of Photoshop features that would confuse me, I'm also sure I could figure them out without needing a class if I needed to.

In all honestly I have no idea if an unsharp mask makes a Moon picture look better, I've never used it on the Moon as far as I can recall. I just threw out a random filter name as an example, it always stuck in my head as funny sounding. Unsharp.

I think most people taking pictures of the Moon for the first time with a camera that has manual controls would just turn the dials until it looked good. Really, shutter speed and aperture are only two settings and easy to figure out what they do even if you never used a camera before. I rarely look up how to take a picture of something, I just experiment. I think most photographers, professional or not will just take a picture of something and adjust the dials rather than put the camera down, pick up a laptop and do research. It's not rocket science.

My current moon lens is a 300mm to 600mm zoom. And for the record, I have been taking pictures since before the internet existed and yes, we could take pictures without looking it up. :)

Possibly thats where you may have gone wrong. If you want to improve as a photographer it's a good idea to look at other peoples work and dig deeper into what's the best approach and seek expert help and advice. This approach you say you use only seeking your own advice is a road to nowhere akin to interbreeding.

IM a member of a photographic society and one of the main activities is having presentations from photographers who have become skilled in various areas. It's called learning and it broadens the mind.  What do you have against expert advice when it is so freely available?

Sure photography on the face of it is not that complex. Pick up any new camera and look at the menu system. You are saying with no help you would be able to select all the correct setting for all the various types of photography and video right off!  I use a Sony A7R2 and A7R3. First thing when I got them was to go on the web and find out what the best settings were and set the camera up properly. Why fool around when it's already been done by someone else based on the instruction book ? When you are doing a shoot the last thing you want to be is unsure about the workings of your camera, it needs to be transparent. Trial and error simply does not cut it. if you are working with someone or at a place you may never back to it not a good approach.  I suppose thats the difference between a rank amateur who will be happy with any result and a photographer.

All the good photographers who I know, all have one thing in common the desire to learn new things and become more skilled at what they do. Using expert advice is an efficient way to achieve that. But each to his own. Looking things up is a good thing why you speak about it as though it is something 'dirty'  I really don't understand. I really do believe this discussion is contaminated by cultural differences as I don't understand the reluctance to seek expert advice and look things up.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #275 on: July 29, 2021, 07:57:42 AM »
So you still don't have anything to say regarding how the position you are defending has been thoroughly dismantled then?

So you keep saying.
So what experiment would you use? Explain them and you may well dismantle me. Give it a try.

Currently Im fully together as no experiment/ observations  have been revealed that contradicts my position. You keeping on making statement like these with no backup mean less than zero. Give me some facts.

Lots of bluff and bluster but no hard factual concrete experiments. Thats what I say.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #276 on: July 29, 2021, 08:12:32 AM »
You haven't been able to counter JB's clearly laid out logical argument. Until you can do that, you have nothing. You're just being obnoxious.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #277 on: July 29, 2021, 08:18:11 AM »
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.

And how did you learn the basic geometry and maths? Did you teach yourself? Understanding an experiment and repeating it is one thing devising an original experiment is quite another thing. Try it and see how you get on with no assistance.

What are you trying to say, that it's impossible for me to come up with my own experiments?

What makes you so sure I haven't?  Am I just too dumb?  Every single experiment in existence was thought up by someone, but I'm somehow unable to do so?

Every fact and theory we have was thought up by someone, we didn't find it all written down on a tablet or anything.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #278 on: July 29, 2021, 08:30:54 AM »
My current moon lens is a 300mm to 600mm zoom. And for the record, I have been taking pictures since before the internet existed and yes, we could take pictures without looking it up. :)

Possibly thats where you may have gone wrong. If you want to improve as a photographer it's a good idea to look at other peoples work and dig deeper into what's the best approach and seek expert help and advice. This approach you say you use only seeking your own advice is a road to nowhere akin to interbreeding.

LOL. That's quite a stretch there to think that I have 'gone wrong' and that I say to never ever ask for advice and never read a book. You have no idea how accomplished (or not) of a photographer I am. You have no idea how much time I spent 'fiddling with knobs' and how much time I spent reading and asking for advice.

How many awards have I won, ten? A hundred? Zero? Could be any of these, you don't know and can't really judge me.

IM a member of a photographic society and one of the main activities is having presentations from photographers who have become skilled in various areas. It's called learning and it broadens the mind.  What do you have against expert advice when it is so freely available?

Sure photography on the face of it is not that complex. Pick up any new camera and look at the menu system. You are saying with no help you would be able to select all the correct setting for all the various types of photography and video right off!  I use a Sony A7R2 and A7R3. First thing when I got them was to go on the web and find out what the best settings were and set the camera up properly. Why fool around when it's already been done by someone else based on the instruction book ? When you are doing a shoot the last thing you want to be is unsure about the workings of your camera, it needs to be transparent. Trial and error simply does not cut it. if you are working with someone or at a place you may never back to it not a good approach.  I suppose thats the difference between a rank amateur who will be happy with any result and a photographer.

All the good photographers who I know, all have one thing in common the desire to learn new things and become more skilled at what they do. Using expert advice is an efficient way to achieve that. But each to his own. Looking things up is a good thing why you speak about it as though it is something 'dirty'  I really don't understand. I really do believe this discussion is contaminated by cultural differences as I don't understand the reluctance to seek expert advice and look things up.

I too have been a member of various photographic societies, sometimes I have listened to presentations, sometimes I was the one teaching and demonstrating.

You are misrepresenting my entire argument. I'm not saying you can't ever learn from other people. I'm not saying you HAVE to learn all on your own with no help from anyone, ever.

What I'm saying is a photographer, when presented with a blurry photograph is going to fiddle with the dials before going to a meeting of a photographic society and asking to be taught how to take a picture of that specific object and situation. Even a novice will be capable of learning many things on his own. And guess what, learning on your own and experimenting with settings ALSO has the advantage you might learn something new. If your only source is books and advice from others, nothing new will ever be discovered.

I've taken pictures of things with methods you never have, and I did so having to experiment on my own because there simply wasn't anywhere to learn it. I'm very aware of how helpful experts can be, but also how much you can do by learning and experimenting.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #279 on: July 29, 2021, 09:15:17 AM »
I'm still curious, when TCP/IP was developed which TCP/IP exports did Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf get their knowledge from?
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #280 on: July 29, 2021, 10:36:59 AM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two I’ve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.

So you opened up some stills in photoshop and fooled around blindly for a bit. What do you want a medal?

Engineers trial and error! Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that. Engineers unlike you are experts in their field and go about task in a systematic way using proven methods which are the antithesis of your unprofessional fooling around in photoshop. Engineers don't guess when designing a structure or system where a mistake could cost lives.

The real world is expert driven. What you have against that is bewildering. People like you who imagine they can acquire complex skills by fiddling around by trial and error and seriously deranged. Before you know where you are you'll be performing brain surgery through trial and error! Go for it. There are some people around here you could practice on !
So, you have no clue what engineers do.  I do, I am an engineer.  Trial and error methods are part and parcel to the whole process.  Stop speaking about things you have no clue about.  It's quite clear who the deranged one is here.  I spoke about engineering, something I have intimate knowledge about, why are you bringing up surgeons?  Is it because you have nothing but pathetic strawman arguments?  I think so.  I have acquired alot of complex knowledge through trial and error methods, the fact that you are so painted onto a corner that you need to take up the absolutely deranged talking points is telling.  What did I say several pages back about experts teaching knowledge to others?  That is is a huge part but NOT required for all learning. 
One of my former professor'
s engineering mantra again, design, test, refine.  That refine is important, experts, engineers, teachers, etc don't know everything.  Learning from mistakes is progress.  Trial and error is in fact learning from failures and successes.  One of the best ways to learn.  It doesn't always require an expert to hold your hand. 
Again, one more time for the cheap seats, you are showing that you are so emotionally involved in this failure of logic that my recommendation is to go ahead and admit your mistake and stop digging this stupid hole deeper.  It's ok if Jack disagreed with you, it ain't the end of the world.  He was right, you are wrong, it's ok to be wrong. 
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 11:25:20 AM by Mikey T. »

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #281 on: July 29, 2021, 11:26:57 AM »
You haven't been able to counter JB's clearly laid out logical argument. Until you can do that, you have nothing. You're just being obnoxious.
This.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #282 on: July 29, 2021, 11:29:10 AM »
Timeisup could actually spin this as a personal growth win, one where he employed trial-and-error learning techniques and discovered an important pitfall in a particular line of reasoning that should be reevaluated so as not to fall in that trap again in the future. It's one of the many ways life teaches us lessons, and it can help each of us get closer to being experts at navigating life successfully without having another expert (I guess a life coach, in this case?) to tell us all what to do all the time.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #283 on: July 29, 2021, 03:09:28 PM »
You guys crack me up with your anti-expert no standards stance.
Are you capable of responding to what has actually been said for once?
It isn't an anti-expert.
It is just anti your "experts are the only way" stance.

It is quite different.

everyone knows that is such an inefficient and the worst way to learn
So you accept it is a way to learn?
Negating the claim that just accepting what an expert says is the only way.

Again, the discussion is not about if experts exist, or if you can get knowledge from them.
It is about if the only way to obtain knowledge is to just accept what experts say, or if there is an alternative.

So by accepting it as a way to learn, you accept that it is a way to obtain knowledge, and thus refute Brawndo's claim.

Prototyping is a totally different activity.
Prototyping IS trial and error.
Trying to do something new doesn't mean it is no longer trial and error.

Prototyping is part of a problem solving process done in a planned and systematic way. Not like your dial twirling hap hazard method of photography.
Again, that is your strawmanning.
The actual way to do it is a planned and systematic way. You go through the settings in turn to determine what setting improves the result and which makes it worse. You build upon those settings (prototypes).
You would not do your strawman of just randomly setting settings and seeing if it works and if not discarding it and starting with a new random one.

That burden must be really weighing you down!
Again, the one with the burden here is you.

Again, if you wanted to pretend I had one, it has been met by the logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute.
Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Figured out a way to object to it yet?
If not, there cannot be any additional for me, as this logical argument proves you are wrong.

I take it they have come from your own fiddling about and not devised by someone who knew what they were doing?
Again, are you capable of reading simple English?
Or do you just hate the truth so much you are willing to continually strawman your opponents to pretend you are correct?

Again, while you continue with this dishonest BS, there is no point in me providing any experiment as you will just use this dishonest BS to pretend you are correct.
Grow up.
Try being honest for once and just admitting you are wrong.

Now the difference between you and the monkeys is a difficult call. You tell me!
I did, but like everything that shows you are wrong, you just ignored it.

Let's stick to the central question
Yes, lets stick to the central question.
The claim is that the only way to learn the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says Earth is.
This is not stating that you need some kind of expert help. Instead it states you need to just accept what they say Earth is.
I.e. expert says Earth is round, so you accept it is round.

If this was the case, no one could ever be an expert, like I have already explained.

Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that.
And what law would that be?
Especially considering engineers use trial and error all the time. They call it prototyping.

It is used in all sorts of fields.
But bringing it back to science, that is a key part of science.
You make an observation and based upon that observation you come up with a hypothesis. You then test (i.e. TRIAL) that hypothesis. If you find it faulty (i.e. IN ERROR) you improve it.

Wikipedia even has this to say:
Quote
Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving. [1] It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,[2]

Describing applications, it even has something akin to my monkey example:
Quote
Suppose a collection of 1000 on/off switches have to be set to a particular combination by random-based testing, where each test is expected to take one second. The strategies are:
  • the perfectionist all-or-nothing method, with no attempt at holding partial successes. This would be expected to take more than 10^301 seconds
  • a serial-test of switches, holding on to the partial successes (assuming that these are manifest), which would take 500 seconds on average
  • parallel-but-individual testing of all switches simultaneously, which would take only one second
The first example, which is the way you cling to, is the stupid way.
The way I gave is more akin to the second one.

It then even has examples:
Quote
Trial and error has traditionally been the main method of finding new drugs, such as antibiotics.
Trial and error is also commonly seen in player responses to video games - when faced with an obstacle or boss, players often form a number of strategies to surpass the obstacle or defeat the boss, with each strategy being carried out before the player either succeeds or quits the game.
The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning – all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error.
Jumping spiders of the genus Portia use trial and error to find new tactics against unfamiliar prey or in unusual situations, and remember the new tactics.[7] Tests show that Portia fimbriata and Portia labiata can use trial and error in an artificial environment

It then contains links to other examples, such as Ariadne's thread, Brute force attack, Brute force search and genetic algorithms.

So we have you declaring trial and error as a fools errand; while we have experts indicating the opposite (note: I'm not saying wikipedia is the expert, I am saying that is a compilation of expert knowledge, you are free to go look at the references).

This approach you say you use only seeking your own advice is a road to nowhere akin to interbreeding.
Did you mean inbreeding? Do you even speak English? Because not speaking and understanding English could explain a lot.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #284 on: July 30, 2021, 01:06:20 AM »
This discussion/argument has run its course as it’s looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says it’s, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!

You keep resisting exposing what your secret non secret experiment is.
Why….. because there isn’t one.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one while even stopping to consult Wikipedia, the great online Expert!

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley. As working on the edge of human knowledge is not a simple affair with easy answers. Nor can they just look it up in Wikipedia. Cutting edge research is a far cry from you stumbling around using trial and error on a problem who’s solution is well known and in the public domain. To try and compare the two situations is just another example of your farcical thinking. You don’t operate on the edge of human knowledge. Everything you deal with is known and understood with answers all provided by the many many specialised experts and therefore there is no need of trial and error.

The only piece of original knowledge discovered by you and known to no other is possibly the diameter of the mole on your backside. Quite possible Bly you made the measurement by trial and error.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.

Just like a flat earther who has no Hope of ever proving the earth flat or producing their mythical FE map YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and it’s acquisition. Some give the impression that they have unique knowledge or are somehow able to validate any item of knowledge rather than accepting through learning. Most knowledge particularly in the area is science just has to be accepted on the basis of the evidence that is provided. No one has the ability for example to deny scientifically the existence of gravity waves. Nor has anyone the resources to confirm their existence. It’s just one of the many pieces of scientific knowledge that has to be accepted.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #285 on: July 30, 2021, 04:19:57 AM »
This discussion/argument has run its course
It seemed to have run its course right from the start when you objected to Boydster saying Brawndo was wrong, and straight away run off on a tangent.

as it’s looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.
Likewise, it seems you will never reveal your never before seen proof that the moon is made of cheese, like you claim you can do.
So that means you are wrong, and are a looser.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says it’s, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!
No, in an argument where someone claims something is impossible, and others object to that claim, the burden is on those who say it is impossible.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one
You sure do love your projection don't you.

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley.
i.e. trial and error, something you said was ridiculous and that you hopes engineers and doctors wouldn't pick up.
But here you are admitting that is what expert researchers do.
But of course, rather than just be honest and admit you were wrong, you deflect.

Again, the point is not to show that trial and error is the BEST way, nor the ONLY way. It is just to show that it is a POSSIBLE way.
The fact that you can learn by trial and errors demonstrates that you are wrong. You don't need an expert telling you what to do.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.
And there you go with more lies.
Stop with the continued pathetic strawmen. At no point have I denied the actual place of expert knowledge and authority.
Instead I have just pointed out that that is not the ONLY way.

But because you can't defend that pure nonsense, you instead continually lie to pretend others are saying things they are not.

YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.
In other words, you just ignore everything that shows you are wrong, and continue to lie about others.
I provide a logical argument that shows beyond any sane doubt that you are wrong.
You have continually ignored it and instead just made repeated pathetic demands for me to prove I never claimed, and to provide things I never claimed to have.

So no, I'm not the failure here.
If you want to not be the failure, you could either try to grow and admit you were wrong, or actually try to refute the argument. Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Have you decided on what point you think is wrong, and why it is wrong, and what you think it should be?

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and it’s acquisition.
Yes, some delusional people seem to think the ONLY way to obtain knowledge is by just accepting what an expert says, as if it can only be acquired through religion, and think that all that is needed to defend that nonsense is to show that you CAN get it from an expert.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
If Timmy had an experiment and observation that could prove the Moon is made of cheese, he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #286 on: July 30, 2021, 04:40:27 AM »
This discussion/argument has run its course as it’s looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says it’s, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!

You keep resisting exposing what your secret non secret experiment is.
Why….. because there isn’t one.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one while even stopping to consult Wikipedia, the great online Expert!

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley. As working on the edge of human knowledge is not a simple affair with easy answers. Nor can they just look it up in Wikipedia. Cutting edge research is a far cry from you stumbling around using trial and error on a problem who’s solution is well known and in the public domain. To try and compare the two situations is just another example of your farcical thinking. You don’t operate on the edge of human knowledge. Everything you deal with is known and understood with answers all provided by the many many specialised experts and therefore there is no need of trial and error.

The only piece of original knowledge discovered by you and known to no other is possibly the diameter of the mole on your backside. Quite possible Bly you made the measurement by trial and error.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.

Just like a flat earther who has no Hope of ever proving the earth flat or producing their mythical FE map YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and it’s acquisition. Some give the impression that they have unique knowledge or are somehow able to validate any item of knowledge rather than accepting through learning. Most knowledge particularly in the area is science just has to be accepted on the basis of the evidence that is provided. No one has the ability for example to deny scientifically the existence of gravity waves. Nor has anyone the resources to confirm their existence. It’s just one of the many pieces of scientific knowledge that has to be accepted.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
So much wrong here.  When I get back to a computer I may try to explain.  This is a just whole lot of Timmy butthurt.
You never substantiated the claim you supported and you cried and cried about Jack and whined for him to prove you were wrong with an experiment.  You cried about him having the burden of proof when he disagreed with your claim.  You basically took a small mistake of supporting an illogical claim and turned it into a raging bonfire of stupid.  Just couldn't overcome the narcissism enough to just say, oops you were wrong.  Nope you just couldn't do it, can't admit defeat, must continually focus on Jack.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #287 on: July 31, 2021, 01:24:28 AM »
This discussion/argument has run its course as it’s looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says it’s, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!

You keep resisting exposing what your secret non secret experiment is.
Why….. because there isn’t one.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one while even stopping to consult Wikipedia, the great online Expert!

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley. As working on the edge of human knowledge is not a simple affair with easy answers. Nor can they just look it up in Wikipedia. Cutting edge research is a far cry from you stumbling around using trial and error on a problem who’s solution is well known and in the public domain. To try and compare the two situations is just another example of your farcical thinking. You don’t operate on the edge of human knowledge. Everything you deal with is known and understood with answers all provided by the many many specialised experts and therefore there is no need of trial and error.

The only piece of original knowledge discovered by you and known to no other is possibly the diameter of the mole on your backside. Quite possible Bly you made the measurement by trial and error.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.

Just like a flat earther who has no Hope of ever proving the earth flat or producing their mythical FE map YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and it’s acquisition. Some give the impression that they have unique knowledge or are somehow able to validate any item of knowledge rather than accepting through learning. Most knowledge particularly in the area is science just has to be accepted on the basis of the evidence that is provided. No one has the ability for example to deny scientifically the existence of gravity waves. Nor has anyone the resources to confirm their existence. It’s just one of the many pieces of scientific knowledge that has to be accepted.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
So much wrong here.  When I get back to a computer I may try to explain.  This is a just whole lot of Timmy butthurt.
You never substantiated the claim you supported and you cried and cried about Jack and whined for him to prove you were wrong with an experiment.  You cried about him having the burden of proof when he disagreed with your claim.  You basically took a small mistake of supporting an illogical claim and turned it into a raging bonfire of stupid.  Just couldn't overcome the narcissism enough to just say, oops you were wrong.  Nope you just couldn't do it, can't admit defeat, must continually focus on Jack.

There there! You appear so upset let me pass you a tissue. Later You can put it tears and all on your mantle beside your photoshop medal.
No one asked you to join this ‘discussion’. I don’t give two hoots what you think. You’ve already illustrated just how off beam and disconnected with reality you are several times. Imagining how in school you did all your learning, without out experts and while in the Gulf mastered photoshop on your own with no assistance! Give me a break man, come visit the real world!
Schools are run and operated  by experts, it’s how the education system works!
Photoshop can not be mastered by a numbskull with no assistance!

The thing is if you are dumb you stumble around making mistakes getting nowhere fast. If you are smart you quickly learn that you don’t have all the answers and you find people who do. Like in photoshop. Ive been using it for over 20 years and still refer to experts to learn new things. On-line Experts like Phlearn who do a great job of keeping up to date. I want to know about the new features like neural filters, I go and see what he has to say about them. Smart and efficient.
You and your pals reluctance to admit that you don’t know everything and can get by on your own ignorance just demonstrates how close minded and narrow you all are. As they say ignorance is bliss.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #288 on: July 31, 2021, 01:40:20 AM »
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.

And how did you learn the basic geometry and maths? Did you teach yourself? Understanding an experiment and repeating it is one thing devising an original experiment is quite another thing. Try it and see how you get on with no assistance.

What are you trying to say, that it's impossible for me to come up with my own experiments?

What makes you so sure I haven't?  Am I just too dumb?  Every single experiment in existence was thought up by someone, but I'm somehow unable to do so?

Every fact and theory we have was thought up by someone, we didn't find it all written down on a tablet or anything.

Well have you come up with your own?

If you have bully for you!

The problem with people with your attitude toward expert knowledge is that you will never rise above mediocrity. Admitting that you don’t know or have mastered everything is a sign of intelligence. Realising that and finding expert sources for the knowledge that you want or need  puts you on the right path.
Realising that some people are better than you and know more than you and have greater skills than you does not make you dumb, it’s called reality. Not realising that is most certainly  dumb!

I think you guys need to do a course on the history of knowledge!

Every fact we know was thought up by someone! You don’t say! Here I was thinking they were all given to us by magic unicorns!

It’s how it came about incrementally over time and how it’s vastly different now from how it was 100,000 years ago. Now all the low hanging fruit is gone. What is needed now are very very long ladders. Ladders that neither you of Jack Black will ever possess. If you can’t grasp and understand that simple fact then more fool you.

I think these are the same unicorns that helped Jack Black devise his secret non secret experiments!
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #289 on: July 31, 2021, 01:52:11 AM »
This discussion/argument has run its course
It seemed to have run its course right from the start when you objected to Boydster saying Brawndo was wrong, and straight away run off on a tangent.

as it’s looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.
Likewise, it seems you will never reveal your never before seen proof that the moon is made of cheese, like you claim you can do.
So that means you are wrong, and are a looser.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says it’s, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!
No, in an argument where someone claims something is impossible, and others object to that claim, the burden is on those who say it is impossible.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one
You sure do love your projection don't you.

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley.
i.e. trial and error, something you said was ridiculous and that you hopes engineers and doctors wouldn't pick up.
But here you are admitting that is what expert researchers do.
But of course, rather than just be honest and admit you were wrong, you deflect.

Again, the point is not to show that trial and error is the BEST way, nor the ONLY way. It is just to show that it is a POSSIBLE way.
The fact that you can learn by trial and errors demonstrates that you are wrong. You don't need an expert telling you what to do.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.
And there you go with more lies.
Stop with the continued pathetic strawmen. At no point have I denied the actual place of expert knowledge and authority.
Instead I have just pointed out that that is not the ONLY way.

But because you can't defend that pure nonsense, you instead continually lie to pretend others are saying things they are not.

YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.
In other words, you just ignore everything that shows you are wrong, and continue to lie about others.
I provide a logical argument that shows beyond any sane doubt that you are wrong.
You have continually ignored it and instead just made repeated pathetic demands for me to prove I never claimed, and to provide things I never claimed to have.

So no, I'm not the failure here.
If you want to not be the failure, you could either try to grow and admit you were wrong, or actually try to refute the argument. Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Have you decided on what point you think is wrong, and why it is wrong, and what you think it should be?

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and it’s acquisition.
Yes, some delusional people seem to think the ONLY way to obtain knowledge is by just accepting what an expert says, as if it can only be acquired through religion, and think that all that is needed to defend that nonsense is to show that you CAN get it from an expert.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
If Timmy had an experiment and observation that could prove the Moon is made of cheese, he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.

Firstly stop with the distorted made to fit homespun warped FE logic. It don’t cut it no matter how many points you want to make.

No one cares about the shape of the earth. There are no subject specific earth shaped experts! Come to the real world! Everyone bar FE nuts know it’s a sphere. How? It was one of the facts they learned in school along with all the other facts.

There are no experiments you yourself have devised. Had you done so you would have crowed about them long ago.

For just a second why on earth would someone want to prove an already proven and well known fact such as the shape of the earth?

Why do you imagine that the only experiment ever spoken about is the one by the Greek dude! He did it thousands of years ago, case closed. Unlike you, who only imagines he has done it and then try’s to cover up his inadequacies by pages of garbage.

If you have a novel and new experiment that proves the shape of the earth then good for you, it must make you feel very clever, so how about sharing your not secret secret?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #290 on: July 31, 2021, 01:55:39 AM »
Dude you've already proved the earth is flat. You can give it a rest now.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FET!!!

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #291 on: July 31, 2021, 05:04:23 AM »
The problem with people with your attitude toward expert knowledge is that you will never rise above mediocrity. Admitting that you don’t know or have mastered everything is a sign of intelligence. Realising that and finding expert sources for the knowledge that you want or need  puts you on the right path.
Realising that some people are better than you and know more than you and have greater skills than you does not make you dumb, it’s called reality. Not realising that is most certainly  dumb!

I think you kind of forgot to read everything that I said. Let me point out a pertinent quote...

You are misrepresenting my entire argument. I'm not saying you can't ever learn from other people. I'm not saying you HAVE to learn all on your own with no help from anyone, ever.

I'm not sure why you think I am somehow against learning from others, or that I think I am smarter than every human on the planet. Because I certainly didn't say that. In fact if you go through my recent posts I thought I made it very clear that I too go to societies to learn from others and have indeed, read books.

Just to make it extra clear, yes, you can learn from others. Yes, there are people smarter than me or who know more. Sometimes being taught is better than learning on your own, but not always. Learning on your own can lead to new discoveries, and sometimes it's just simply fun.

I think these are the same unicorns that helped Jack Black devise his secret non secret experiments!

Bullcrap! I do not share my unicorns! >:(

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #292 on: July 31, 2021, 06:41:58 AM »
The problem with people with your attitude toward expert knowledge is that you will never rise above mediocrity. Admitting that you don’t know or have mastered everything is a sign of intelligence. Realising that and finding expert sources for the knowledge that you want or need  puts you on the right path.
Realising that some people are better than you and know more than you and have greater skills than you does not make you dumb, it’s called reality. Not realising that is most certainly  dumb!

I think you kind of forgot to read everything that I said. Let me point out a pertinent quote...

You are misrepresenting my entire argument. I'm not saying you can't ever learn from other people. I'm not saying you HAVE to learn all on your own with no help from anyone, ever.

I'm not sure why you think I am somehow against learning from others, or that I think I am smarter than every human on the planet. Because I certainly didn't say that. In fact if you go through my recent posts I thought I made it very clear that I too go to societies to learn from others and have indeed, read books.

Just to make it extra clear, yes, you can learn from others. Yes, there are people smarter than me or who know more. Sometimes being taught is better than learning on your own, but not always. Learning on your own can lead to new discoveries, and sometimes it's just simply fun.

I think these are the same unicorns that helped Jack Black devise his secret non secret experiments!

Bullcrap! I do not share my unicorns! >:(

Yes you can learn from others WHAT !...hell man get real that is the MAIN way of learning. How often have you in reality learned things totally on your own?

it beggars belief the display of ignorance around here. People who know squat all about things pontificating on how easy they are to use basing their opinion on ignorance alone. When it comes to Photoshop, thats utter bollocks. People imagining photoshop is just about applying a filter here and there and sliding a few sliders are just displaying their level of utter 'dumbness'. You try doing a composite image on your own from scratch and let's see how you get on. Why a composite image? The creation of composite images uses many of the main basic photoshop skills.

At the moment Im learning to use Boris FX Optics plugin for Photoshop. Im learning it, not using Jack Blacks wasteful and inefficient trial and error reinvent a square wheel method, Im learning how to use it by listening to experts. Its a complex multilayered piece of software that I want to get up and running fast with. Expert advice is the BEST way.

I think you people have spent far too much time absorbing FE fantasy think. Come back to the real world.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #293 on: July 31, 2021, 06:43:08 AM »
Dude you've already proved the earth is flat. You can give it a rest now.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FET!!!

Clean your specs man, then go read a book.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #294 on: July 31, 2021, 06:54:20 AM »
No one asked you to join this ‘discussion’. I don’t give two hoots what you think. You’ve already illustrated just how off beam and disconnected with reality you are several times.
There you go projecting yet again.
You are the one who still seems to need to reject reality of what Brawndo's claim was and what that means so you can pretend you weren't wrong to defend it.
And who asked you to join the discussion?

Yet again you refuse to address the actual issue. Instead of trying to demonstrate that you need to just accept what an expert says, you instead just show that you can use an expert and that it is often faster. But again, that isn't the issue.

The problem with people with your attitude toward expert knowledge
And just what attitude is that?
Do you mean accepting that it came from some experiment, rather than just magically being given to them, and that you don't need to just accept what an expert says to gain knowledge?

Realising that some people are better than you and know more than you and have greater skills than you does not make you dumb, it’s called reality. Not realising that is most certainly  dumb!
So when will you realise?

I think these are the same unicorns that helped Jack Black devise his secret non secret experiments!
Are they the same ones that helped you devise your secret experiment that 100% proves the moon is made of cheese?

Firstly stop with the distorted made to fit homespun warped FE logic.
If you have an objection to the logic, provide it.
As an actual objection to a specific point of the argument.
If all you can do is dismiss the argument, then that shows you have no objection and that you cannot refute the argument, and that you have been proven wrong.

No one cares about the shape of the earth. There are no subject specific earth shaped experts!
Again, the very topic of the thread IS the shape of Earth.
The claim by Brawndo was the only way to understand the shape of Earth is by accepting what the subject matter experts say Earth is. That would mean what the Earth shape experts would say Earth is. So if they don't exist, then according to Brawndo, there is no way to understand the shape of Earth.

There are no experiments you yourself have devised. Had you done so you would have crowed about them long ago.
Had you devised an experiment to show the Moon is made of cheese you would have crowed about them long ago. So how about sharing your not secret secret?

For just a second why on earth would someone want to prove an already proven and well known fact such as the shape of the earth?
Good job demonstrating you really don't understand how science works.
Do you understand the principle of verification?

Why do you imagine that the only experiment ever spoken about is the one by the Greek dude!
The network effect.
Are you aware Eratosthenes didn't prove Earth is round? All he did was measure the size of the round Earth, based upon the sun being very far away.
Al Bruni's method does both, measure the size of Earth and show it is round.

So why did Al Bruni do it?
Why do people still to this day still try to get accurate measurements of the shape of Earth?
Why is there still a field on it?

And again, what is preventing someone from doing those experiments so they don't just have to accept someone saying Earth is round?

Clean your specs man, then go read a book.
Well, with you needing to pretend RE is a religion to try to pretend you are correct it most certainly isn't a victory for the RE.
Perhaps after you stop dragging it through the mud it can change.

Yes you can learn from others WHAT !...hell man get real that is the MAIN way of learning.
Do you actually understand English at all?
Do you know the difference between "best way", "a way", "possible way", "main way" and "only way" (and so on)?

Again, the claim was that it was the ONLY way.
But all you seem to be capable of doing is showing it is A way, or a good way, or the main way, and so on.
You make no attempt to show it is the ONLY way.
And with that, every post of yours is yet another failed opportunity for you to actually defend the claim.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #295 on: July 31, 2021, 07:01:43 AM »
Hey Jack, be cool.

I don't need to defend my claim. You said you could disprove it!

You said you had experiment(s) and observations(s) I said you didn't.

I said referring to experts was indeed the only way so far you have showed NO way. Well done Jack.

That is the kernel of the argument.

To date you have offered ZERO proof these experiments or observations exist. I know you are fond about extracting evidence from the other poor users on this forum who you try and nail down. So how about YOU come clean and present your own evidence and dispense with the smoke screens.

Thats it Jack. Bluff and bluster all you want as there is no escaping from the simple fact that you have presented NO evidence to back up YOUR claim.

PS.
The moon is not made from cheese. The nice expert people at NASA brought back some samples to show otherwise. Other experts have confirmed these chesse-less moon findings. So far the non-experts like yourself on the "do we have a cheesy moon" question have come up with zip.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2021, 07:09:36 AM by Timeisup »
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #296 on: July 31, 2021, 07:20:17 AM »
Again, in no way have I been anti-expert.  I have repeatedly reiterated that your support of the claim that the ONLY way to gain understanding is from experts.  I'm also not upset, I just enjoy pressing foolish people into self destruction.  You have played the fool very nicely, thank you.  You are wrong.  You also don't get to choose who makes you look like an idiot, I choose to do so, you do your part an continue to be the fool. 
So you have nothing I see to offer proof for your claims that only experts can teach you things then, we will just highlight that failure again then.  Are you going to continue to dance and strawman, or are you going to act... you know what,, never-ending that, fools only really know how to be fools.  So more entertainment for me.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #297 on: July 31, 2021, 07:23:35 AM »
Bullcrap! I do not share my unicorns! >:(

Yes you can learn from others WHAT !...hell man get real that is the MAIN way of learning. How often have you in reality learned things totally on your own?

it beggars belief the display of ignorance around here. People who know squat all about things pontificating on how easy they are to use basing their opinion on ignorance alone. When it comes to Photoshop, thats utter bollocks. People imagining photoshop is just about applying a filter here and there and sliding a few sliders are just displaying their level of utter 'dumbness'. You try doing a composite image on your own from scratch and let's see how you get on. Why a composite image? The creation of composite images uses many of the main basic photoshop skills.

At the moment Im learning to use Boris FX Optics plugin for Photoshop. Im learning it, not using Jack Blacks wasteful and inefficient trial and error reinvent a square wheel method, Im learning how to use it by listening to experts. Its a complex multilayered piece of software that I want to get up and running fast with. Expert advice is the BEST way.

I think you people have spent far too much time absorbing FE fantasy think. Come back to the real world.

You and I have very different life experiences it seems.

I don't see Photoshop as some mysterious, complicated software that is impossible to understand without getting a Masters degree in Photoshop operation. I'm confident you could hand me any image processing software in the world and I'd be able to composite images without any help. The concept of layers has been around long before Photoshop. I'm sorry, Photoshop is just not THAT complicated. It's not incomprehensible without taking a 4 year course in it.

I have no idea what the Boris FX Optics plugin does, but I have no doubt I could figure that out on my own. Would it be quicker if you told me, sure. But would I need you to? No. 

Most of my professional work has been doing things where there is no manual, where figuring stuff out on your own is the only way to go. I've never taken a class in operating a piece of software, I just figured it out. I read manuals where available, asked for advice in the rare cases I was able to do so, but otherwise just got it done.

Remember, there is more than one way to use a piece of software. Learning from an expert might be the fastest way to learn one particular method, but can you guarantee the way that expert uses it is the BEST way? For everyone?  No.

Not to even mention programming and writing your own software. Much of that is uncharted territory, you're always doing things that have never been done before. Good luck finding an expert in writing the thing you are creating. You're that expert, or will be when you finish.

To truly use anything as fast as possible and to the best of your ability you need to both have expert advice and the ability to learn on your own, including trial and error.

TLDR; Learning from others and learning by yourself are both valid ways of learning and in life there will be times you need one, times you will need the other and times when you need to do both. You can't figure it all out by yourself, but you can't learn everything from other either.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #298 on: July 31, 2021, 10:56:26 AM »
Bullcrap! I do not share my unicorns! >:(

Yes you can learn from others WHAT !...hell man get real that is the MAIN way of learning. How often have you in reality learned things totally on your own?

it beggars belief the display of ignorance around here. People who know squat all about things pontificating on how easy they are to use basing their opinion on ignorance alone. When it comes to Photoshop, thats utter bollocks. People imagining photoshop is just about applying a filter here and there and sliding a few sliders are just displaying their level of utter 'dumbness'. You try doing a composite image on your own from scratch and let's see how you get on. Why a composite image? The creation of composite images uses many of the main basic photoshop skills.

At the moment Im learning to use Boris FX Optics plugin for Photoshop. Im learning it, not using Jack Blacks wasteful and inefficient trial and error reinvent a square wheel method, Im learning how to use it by listening to experts. Its a complex multilayered piece of software that I want to get up and running fast with. Expert advice is the BEST way.

I think you people have spent far too much time absorbing FE fantasy think. Come back to the real world.

You and I have very different life experiences it seems.

I don't see Photoshop as some mysterious, complicated software that is impossible to understand without getting a Masters degree in Photoshop operation. I'm confident you could hand me any image processing software in the world and I'd be able to composite images without any help. The concept of layers has been around long before Photoshop. I'm sorry, Photoshop is just not THAT complicated. It's not incomprehensible without taking a 4 year course in it.

I have no idea what the Boris FX Optics plugin does, but I have no doubt I could figure that out on my own. Would it be quicker if you told me, sure. But would I need you to? No. 

Most of my professional work has been doing things where there is no manual, where figuring stuff out on your own is the only way to go. I've never taken a class in operating a piece of software, I just figured it out. I read manuals where available, asked for advice in the rare cases I was able to do so, but otherwise just got it done.

Remember, there is more than one way to use a piece of software. Learning from an expert might be the fastest way to learn one particular method, but can you guarantee the way that expert uses it is the BEST way? For everyone?  No.

Not to even mention programming and writing your own software. Much of that is uncharted territory, you're always doing things that have never been done before. Good luck finding an expert in writing the thing you are creating. You're that expert, or will be when you finish.

To truly use anything as fast as possible and to the best of your ability you need to both have expert advice and the ability to learn on your own, including trial and error.

TLDR; Learning from others and learning by yourself are both valid ways of learning and in life there will be times you need one, times you will need the other and times when you need to do both. You can't figure it all out by yourself, but you can't learn everything from other either.

Just as I thought you too are detached from reality. It really does beggar belief what you are saying, 'out of the mouths of fools and babes':-

"I'm confident you could hand me any image processing software in the world and I'd be able to composite images without any help."

Do you actually have any idea what's involved in doing a composite image? Obviously not. Thats apart from the actual taking of the images themselves  that is no small task in itself  to ensure that they work together in the composite. Do you imagine you could just take and use any random images?

All I can say is I have to beg to differ. As someone who has worked at producing composite images for several years I actually know some of the skills and knowledge that is involved, I don't claim to know even all. You imagining that you could just jump in and do it off the top off your head is just plain silly, but it is in keeping with much of the thinking around here. Optics is just a plugin but to make full use of its capabilities a level of knowledge is required about many aspects of image making. To imagine a rank novice could just pick it up and run with it exhibits a massive denial of so many things.

Its difficult to have a discussion with people that are not living in the harsh world of reality. OR it could be you have placed the bar so low that any rubbish would do, but even then I doubt you could produce even an inherently rubbish image.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #299 on: July 31, 2021, 11:01:22 AM »
Again, in no way have I been anti-expert.  I have repeatedly reiterated that your support of the claim that the ONLY way to gain understanding is from experts.  I'm also not upset, I just enjoy pressing foolish people into self destruction.  You have played the fool very nicely, thank you.  You are wrong.  You also don't get to choose who makes you look like an idiot, I choose to do so, you do your part an continue to be the fool. 
So you have nothing I see to offer proof for your claims that only experts can teach you things then, we will just highlight that failure again then.  Are you going to continue to dance and strawman, or are you going to act... you know what,, never-ending that, fools only really know how to be fools.  So more entertainment for me.

Hows it hanging man? as for choice the only choice you have is just how foolish you want to make yourself look.
Why do you people keep on about men made of straw?

I fail to see how the 'Strawman"  logical fallacy is applicable in this case. Perhaps with your knowledge of argument structure combined with your powers of logic you could explain it to me.
Really…..what a laugh!!!