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

  • 339 Replies
  • 7564 Views
*

JJA

  • 5120
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #300 on: July 31, 2021, 12:55:57 PM »
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.

When did I say I was a rank novice? I thought I've been pretty clear I'm experienced in both software and camera hardware.

Why do you find it so hard to believe I could pick up a random piece of software and use it? I do that all the time, my current job literally requires me to work with software and systems I've never seen before, and I'm expected to just make it work. "I've never used this before and I need to take a class in it" isn't an excuse my boss would accept from me.

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.

If you think "producing composite images" in Photoshop is a harsh reality, then we do live in completely different realities. In my reality, being able to competently operate a software package isn't on the level of brain surgery or rocket science. I don't need to take a class in it to use it effectively.

And to go back to what you said at the beginning, yes, I know what's involved in doing a composite image. In far greater detail than you do I would bet. You talk about using plugins, I've written image processing and 3d modeling plugins. Some of them even before Photoshop was a product. I've written code to composite both still images and animation frames and in some cases was the one photographing the source material. I know how all that works down to how graphics data is stored in memory and to the level of writing out specific image formats. There is software out there that's been selling for decades with my compositing code in it. Might as well go all in if this is going to be a pissing contest.  ^-^

So yes. I could just jump in and do it.  I know I could because I've done it.

Again, since the point keeps getting missed. There are times and places where being taught in a class is fine, and times and places where classes aren't going to help you. Want hired to composite stock photos for advertising, take a class. Want hired to work on cutting edge movie production special effects using custom software? Better know how to solve your own problems.

Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #301 on: July 31, 2021, 02:29:36 PM »
I don't need to defend my claim. You said you could disprove it!
You do need to defend your claim, you do need to justify it.

And I have disproven it, with a 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.

Can you show anything wrong it? If not, you and Brawndo have been disproven.

Again, even if I did need to show you were wrong, I don't need to do so on your terms.
I have provided a logical argument which shows that the claim is wrong.
If you want to show I haven't refuted you, you need to refute that argument or actually try providing your own.

You said you had experiment(s) and observations(s) I said you didn't.
You said the moon is made of cheese and you could prove it. So where is your proof? Without it you lose.
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 that the moon is made of cheese.

After all, people have been to the moon and brought back rocks, clearly showing it isn't made of cheese.
Why do you reject these experts and continue to claim the moon is made of cheese?

Its difficult to have a discussion with people that are not living in the harsh world of reality.
Then perhaps you should try living in reality. It will likely make the discussion easier.

as for choice the only choice you have is just how foolish you want to make yourself look.
And you have clearly chosen to make yourself look as foolish as possible.

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.
It is quite simple.
The original claim was that the only way to understand the shape of Earth is to accept what an expert says it is.
We objected to that nonsense.
We have pointed out other ways are possible, and that if all you could do was accept what an expert says then no one could know.

But rather than focus on those claims, you repeatedly strawman others.
You repeatedly pretend we say things that we didn't.
Instead of trying to defend the claim we are objecting to, you instead falsely claim that we are saying experts are useless, and that it is best to do without experts, and so on.

In case you don't know, from wikipedia:
"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
This is because it is like attacking a man made of straw of your own creation, which you can easily set up to attack which cannot defend itself, rather than actually the man you are meant to be.

Again, the actual subject that you need to refute is that it is POSSIBLE to obtain knowledge without just accepting what an expert says it is.
This doesn't mean no help from an expert at all.
And even if it did, that still wouldn't mean that it is the best way.

This is why I asked if you know the difference between those statements.
Do you know the difference between "best way", "a way", "possible way", "main way" and "only way" (and so on)?
Because the actual argument you need to defend is that the ONLY WAY is by accepting what an expert says.
The counter claim that you need to refute is that there exists a POSSIBLE WAY other than accepting what an expert says (or in the simpler one, that doesn't involve an expert).

But instead of even attempting to do so, you instead set up a strawman that experts are not a way, that experts can't be used, that they are not the best way and so on.
You then attack those strawmen, by showing you can get knowledge from an expert, and that doing so is often easy and done quite widely.

And that means you are not addressing the actual argument.
That is why I brought up the example of the Moon being made of Cheese, you never claimed that, but if I pretend you did and instead of trying to refute what you actually say I try to refute that, would you accept you are wrong?
But even that seems to be going over your head.

While you continue to ignore what is actually said, and instead pretend we have said other things which are a lot easier for you to refute, you are strawmanning.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2021, 02:31:45 PM by JackBlack »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #302 on: July 31, 2021, 03:44:27 PM »
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.
So lets see, what do you think my point of contention was for this entire disagreement?  The base of it.  I have said many times it was you saying Experts were the ONLY way to obtain understanding.  You keep trying to say we are anti-expert, this is a lie.  You, lying about my position so you can argue against that lie is a strawman.  You do this quite a lot, just like scepti, interestingly in quite similar ways. 
But you wont get it, you can't get it.  You are a narcissist, you cannot admit to anything that could make you have to face the fact that you may be wrong and are not important, at all really. 
Your lesson is complete, do you have more questions?  I hate trying to teach morons, but if I must I will.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #303 on: August 01, 2021, 01:09:20 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.
So lets see, what do you think my point of contention was for this entire disagreement?  The base of it.  I have said many times it was you saying Experts were the ONLY way to obtain understanding.  You keep trying to say we are anti-expert, this is a lie.  You, lying about my position so you can argue against that lie is a strawman.  You do this quite a lot, just like scepti, interestingly in quite similar ways. 
But you wont get it, you can't get it.  You are a narcissist, you cannot admit to anything that could make you have to face the fact that you may be wrong and are not important, at all really. 
Your lesson is complete, do you have more questions?  I hate trying to teach morons, but if I must I will.

You and Jack both are the Kings of Straw.  Donít believe me, go read your posts , you for example use classic Stawmans the whole time. Your last post for example is a Strawman exemplar. Let me explain.

You decide Iím a narcissist, then attack me on that basis. Classic Strawman make something up and attack that.

If you read your posts time and time again you argue that experts are not required. Make your mind up.

I have been consistent throughout.

I supported a claim made by B, Jack decided to refute it by saying he could use experiments and observations. I asked Jack what those experiments and observations were! And I keep asking him and he keeps avoiding revealing them!

Tell me how the hell can that be considered a Strawman! As I said you make things up all the time. That makes you a hypocrite!

Chew on that.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #304 on: August 01, 2021, 01:54:16 AM »
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.

When did I say I was a rank novice? I thought I've been pretty clear I'm experienced in both software and camera hardware.

Why do you find it so hard to believe I could pick up a random piece of software and use it? I do that all the time, my current job literally requires me to work with software and systems I've never seen before, and I'm expected to just make it work. "I've never used this before and I need to take a class in it" isn't an excuse my boss would accept from me.

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.

If you think "producing composite images" in Photoshop is a harsh reality, then we do live in completely different realities. In my reality, being able to competently operate a software package isn't on the level of brain surgery or rocket science. I don't need to take a class in it to use it effectively.

And to go back to what you said at the beginning, yes, I know what's involved in doing a composite image. In far greater detail than you do I would bet. You talk about using plugins, I've written image processing and 3d modeling plugins. Some of them even before Photoshop was a product. I've written code to composite both still images and animation frames and in some cases was the one photographing the source material. I know how all that works down to how graphics data is stored in memory and to the level of writing out specific image formats. There is software out there that's been selling for decades with my compositing code in it. Might as well go all in if this is going to be a pissing contest.  ^-^

So yes. I could just jump in and do it.  I know I could because I've done it.

Again, since the point keeps getting missed. There are times and places where being taught in a class is fine, and times and places where classes aren't going to help you. Want hired to composite stock photos for advertising, take a class. Want hired to work on cutting edge movie production special effects using custom software? Better know how to solve your own problems.

Now this too is a pointless argument as I canít verify anything you said. Designing plugins before Photoshop was around!
Now that I find pretty difficult to believe that specially if they were for 3D modelling. Back in 88 3D software was very limited due to the available hardware. The first I used was  Extreme 3D in 96 and then Cimema 4D in 97/98 when Plugincafe was all the rage with people writing stuff for Aps like C4D.

I first came into contact with photoshop in 1988/89 when I was given a release copy of Aldus  Freehand, as Aldus had their European office not far from the education centre where I worked. They had been given a review copy of photoshop that they loaned to me. Big improvement from MacPaint! We had invested a lot in these new Macs and were looking at software to use. The earliest plugins compliant software I can remember from around that time was HyperCard and Quark, though we opted for Pagemaker again by Aldus. So what were those early bits of code and for what apps were they intended? You must be as old as me!

You may well be able to write code but writing code and using software to produce an end result are two very different things. Itís akin to a very skilled paint brush maker claiming, because they are so skilled, they should be able to paint like Caravaggio.

You say you have never really used photoshop but claim without knowing it you could  do fairly complex work with it with no recourse to expert help.  Itís that I find very difficult to believe. Yes itís not brain surgery, but itís still very involved. Not knowing whatís involved yet saying you could do it! Thatís a bug claim!

I agree a pissing contest is pointless but you appear to be removing any of the skill required to produce good composite images, skill I know is most defiantly required.

Cutting edge movie FX are done by companies like Boris who happen to produce Optics, the photoshop plugin I mentioned!

As this is pointless letís agree to disagree bug time.



*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #305 on: August 01, 2021, 02:05:23 AM »
I don't need to defend my claim. You said you could disprove it!
You do need to defend your claim, you do need to justify it.

And I have disproven it, with a 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.

Can you show anything wrong it? If not, you and Brawndo have been disproven.

Again, even if I did need to show you were wrong, I don't need to do so on your terms.
I have provided a logical argument which shows that the claim is wrong.
If you want to show I haven't refuted you, you need to refute that argument or actually try providing your own.

You said you had experiment(s) and observations(s) I said you didn't.
You said the moon is made of cheese and you could prove it. So where is your proof? Without it you lose.
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 that the moon is made of cheese.

After all, people have been to the moon and brought back rocks, clearly showing it isn't made of cheese.
Why do you reject these experts and continue to claim the moon is made of cheese?

Its difficult to have a discussion with people that are not living in the harsh world of reality.
Then perhaps you should try living in reality. It will likely make the discussion easier.

as for choice the only choice you have is just how foolish you want to make yourself look.
And you have clearly chosen to make yourself look as foolish as possible.

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.
It is quite simple.
The original claim was that the only way to understand the shape of Earth is to accept what an expert says it is.
We objected to that nonsense.
We have pointed out other ways are possible, and that if all you could do was accept what an expert says then no one could know.

But rather than focus on those claims, you repeatedly strawman others.
You repeatedly pretend we say things that we didn't.
Instead of trying to defend the claim we are objecting to, you instead falsely claim that we are saying experts are useless, and that it is best to do without experts, and so on.

In case you don't know, from wikipedia:
"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
This is because it is like attacking a man made of straw of your own creation, which you can easily set up to attack which cannot defend itself, rather than actually the man you are meant to be.

Again, the actual subject that you need to refute is that it is POSSIBLE to obtain knowledge without just accepting what an expert says it is.
This doesn't mean no help from an expert at all.
And even if it did, that still wouldn't mean that it is the best way.

This is why I asked if you know the difference between those statements.
Do you know the difference between "best way", "a way", "possible way", "main way" and "only way" (and so on)?
Because the actual argument you need to defend is that the ONLY WAY is by accepting what an expert says.
The counter claim that you need to refute is that there exists a POSSIBLE WAY other than accepting what an expert says (or in the simpler one, that doesn't involve an expert).

But instead of even attempting to do so, you instead set up a strawman that experts are not a way, that experts can't be used, that they are not the best way and so on.
You then attack those strawmen, by showing you can get knowledge from an expert, and that doing so is often easy and done quite widely.

And that means you are not addressing the actual argument.
That is why I brought up the example of the Moon being made of Cheese, you never claimed that, but if I pretend you did and instead of trying to refute what you actually say I try to refute that, would you accept you are wrong?
But even that seems to be going over your head.

While you continue to ignore what is actually said, and instead pretend we have said other things which are a lot easier for you to refute, you are strawmanning.

Jack you are the biggest Strawman on this site you do it all the time. Claiming this and that then attacking the claim. Itís your default style. Accuse people of lying then attacking them for it. Hell Jack you are the Strawman King!

Justify it! Why because it happens to be true? Itís my position Jack. I donít see any way you could do it thatís not been done before. Itís a question thousands of years old. No one cares any more as itís a non question. I donít think there is any experiment you could do all on your own with no assistance. Thatís my justification. You after 11 pages have yet to disprove my stance. No Strawman here Jack! Nice snd simple

Letís stick to the point Jack. No more deflection or Strawmen!

I agree with B you say he is wrong because you can do it all on your own.

Fine!

All you now need to do is prove it!


*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #306 on: August 01, 2021, 05:20:50 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.
So lets see, what do you think my point of contention was for this entire disagreement?  The base of it.  I have said many times it was you saying Experts were the ONLY way to obtain understanding.  You keep trying to say we are anti-expert, this is a lie.  You, lying about my position so you can argue against that lie is a strawman.  You do this quite a lot, just like scepti, interestingly in quite similar ways. 
But you wont get it, you can't get it.  You are a narcissist, you cannot admit to anything that could make you have to face the fact that you may be wrong and are not important, at all really. 
Your lesson is complete, do you have more questions?  I hate trying to teach morons, but if I must I will.

You and Jack both are the Kings of Straw.  Donít believe me, go read your posts , you for example use classic Stawmans the whole time. Your last post for example is a Strawman exemplar. Let me explain.

You decide Iím a narcissist, then attack me on that basis. Classic Strawman make something up and attack that.

If you read your posts time and time again you argue that experts are not required. Make your mind up.

I have been consistent throughout.

I supported a claim made by B, Jack decided to refute it by saying he could use experiments and observations. I asked Jack what those experiments and observations were! And I keep asking him and he keeps avoiding revealing them!

Tell me how the hell can that be considered a Strawman! As I said you make things up all the time. That makes you a hypocrite!

Chew on that.
Do you know what required means?   I know reading comprehension is hard for you, but at least take the time to look up definitions of words you are going to hang your arguments on.
I explained pretty well why you are a narcissist.  You have exhibited the traits time and time again.  Pointing out that you are something is NOT a strawman.  I guess you need to look that up too.  Gaslighting now huh.  More evidence of narcissism. 
Read what I said again moron.  If you lie about what I am saying like I am anti expert or that experts are never used, and then argue that you can use experts, that is a strawman.  I have been consistent, you are trying to claim I have changed my point all based on you not knowing what the word required means.  Pretty narcissistic. 

Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #307 on: August 01, 2021, 05:22:48 AM »
You and Jack both are the Kings of Straw.
No, only the strawmen you set up to knock down.

You decide Iím a narcissist, then attack me on that basis. Classic Strawman make something up and attack that.
No, that would be an ad-hom.
But that wasn't the entire argument was it?
Instead that was a note after the argument.
He wasn't using a claim of you being a narcissist to dismiss your claim, instead he demonstrated the problem with your claim and then stated you were a narcissist.
But of course, rather than actually address the argument, you yet again strawman him.

I supported a claim made by B, Jack decided to refute it by saying he could use experiments and observations. I asked Jack what those experiments and observations were! And I keep asking him and he keeps avoiding revealing them!

Tell me how the hell can that be considered a Strawman!
Because what I actually did was object to the claim Brawndo made and provided a logical argument showing that it is false, by virtue of showing that if that was the case, no one could know the shape of Earth.

But rather than focus on that at all, you continually strawman and try to shift the burden of proof.

Justify it! Why because it happens to be true? Itís my position Jack.
No, because it happens to be pure BS and you refuse to provide any justification for it, instead continually deflecting and strawmanning.

I donít see any way you could do it thatís not been done before.
And yet again you strawman.
Again, who said to come up with a brand new, never before done method?
NO ONE!
But there you go continually pretending they did so you can attack that strawman rather than the actual argument being made.

It truly is pathetic.

I donít think there is any experiment you could do all on your own with no assistance. Thatís my justification.
That isn't a justification, that is a baseless claim.
And it still doesn't address the actual issue.
Again, Brawndo claimed the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand the shape of Earth was to study the literature on what the subject matter experts SAY EARTH IS.
Doing experiments, even with the help of others, still doesn't fall under just accepting what the experts say Earth is, and as such is a different possible that refutes the claim.

Stop attacking strawmen and actually defend the real issue.
Show that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says Earth is.

You after 11 pages have yet to disprove my stance.
It was disproven right from the start.

Letís stick to the point Jack. No more deflection or Strawmen!
I agree with B you say he is wrong because you can do it all on your own.
So you say no more deflection or strawmen, yet you then immediately deflect from the issue and set up a strawman to attack.

Here was my response to him:
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
If that truly was the case, then no one could ever possibly understand the shape of Earth.
Notice how I am not saying I can do it all on my own, or experts are useless or anything like that?
Notice how instead I am stating that his claim would mean no one could know the shape of Earth.

Again, the counter claim is not that I can do it all on my own. The counterclaim is that you do not NEED to just ACCEPT WHAT AN EXPERT SAYS EARTH IS, and that if that was the case, then no one could know the shape of Earth.
Do you understand that?
Again, do you understand the difference between just accepting what they say Earth is, vs doing an experiment with some help?
If not, you need help. I recommend contacting an ESL school so you can understand basic English.

If you really want me to start providing experiments, then first claim that as far as you know, there is no experiment ever conceived or carried out which demonstrates that Earth is round or that could be used to show Earth is round, and thus you believe Earth is round, purely on faith; and accept that to show the position is wrong, I don't need to carry out experiments all by myself, nor do I need to come up with new ones.
If you aren't willing to do the former, then that shows that you KNOW that these experiments exist, and it is extreme dishonesty for you to pretend they don't and demand others provide them.
If you aren't willing to do the latter, then you aren't interested in actually trying to argue the issue, and instead just want to stick to strawmen to pretend you are correct.

All you now need to do is prove it!
No, I don't.
Again, the burden of proof was initially on Brawndo, but then you picked it up when you chose to defend him.

And regardless of who the burden of proof is on, I have proven the claim wrong.

Again, this argument, that you are yet to even attempt to refute, that you cannot explain any fault with, proves Brawndo's claim wrong:
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.

So if you want to stop with the strawmen and deflection, then deal with that argument. Either accept it and accept that you and Brawndo are wrong, or clearly explain what step you think is wrong and why.

If you want to try to defend a different argument, then go start a new thread, make that argument, and have people object to that.

*

JJA

  • 5120
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #308 on: August 01, 2021, 07:21:52 AM »
Now this too is a pointless argument as I canít verify anything you said.

I can't verify anything you said about your experience either, so it's been pointless for a while.

Designing plugins before Photoshop was around!
Now that I find pretty difficult to believe that specially if they were for 3D modelling. Back in 88 3D software was very limited due to the available hardware. The first I used was  Extreme 3D in 96 and then Cimema 4D in 97/98 when Plugincafe was all the rage with people writing stuff for Aps like C4D.

I made plugins for both 2d image software as well as 3d rendering software. Hand coded assembler, fun times.

People did such work before Photoshop was around, it wasn't the first piece of software meant to manipulate images.

And I was using 3d rendering software in 88. I even had more than than one software package I used and wrote texture plugins for generating unique materials.

Not sure why you feel it's so had to believe. Photoshop came onto an already developed scene.

I first came into contact with photoshop in 1988/89 when I was given a release copy of Aldus  Freehand, as Aldus had their European office not far from the education centre where I worked. They had been given a review copy of photoshop that they loaned to me. Big improvement from MacPaint! We had invested a lot in these new Macs and were looking at software to use. The earliest plugins compliant software I can remember from around that time was HyperCard and Quark, though we opted for Pagemaker again by Aldus. So what were those early bits of code and for what apps were they intended? You must be as old as me!

I don't know your exact age but we must be close if we were both working in computers in the 80s.  There were more machines than the Macintosh back then, some of which were significantly more powerful especially when it came to graphics. Silicon Graphics made some amazing hardware back in the day. SGI, Atari, Sun, Amiga, even IBM had some hardware framebuffers that had some advanced software for them.

I've written code to do scene transitions for video compositing, for algorithmically generated textures for 3d programs, visualizations for math objects, rendering pipelines for video games on the PC and Playstation among others.

No I'm not going to name specific products on a forum where I've gotten multiple death threats and there are certifiably insane people reading. No thanks. I don't fear for my life but I have no desire to have to deal with harassment outside here. It's all fun and games until you get mailed a box of poop. :)

You may well be able to write code but writing code and using software to produce an end result are two very different things. Itís akin to a very skilled paint brush maker claiming, because they are so skilled, they should be able to paint like Caravaggio.

I said I not only wrote code, but took the source pictures and videos used for the compositing, hand edited the frames and coded them into the software. These were used in commercial products and some of them are still being sold, and used by people today. So I'd say I can produce an acceptable end result.

Often times writing code IS producing end results. No real difference between clicking on Photoshop or BitBlitting an array of pixels into a custom DC as far as the end result goes.

You say you have never really used photoshop but claim without knowing it you could  do fairly complex work with it with no recourse to expert help.  Itís that I find very difficult to believe. Yes itís not brain surgery, but itís still very involved. Not knowing whatís involved yet saying you could do it! Thatís a bug claim!

I never said I haven't touched the software, just that I prefer others to use in my day to day work. I'm quite familiar with Photoshop.

I agree a pissing contest is pointless but you appear to be removing any of the skill required to produce good composite images, skill I know is most defiantly required.

Cutting edge movie FX are done by companies like Boris who happen to produce Optics, the photoshop plugin I mentioned!

It takes skill and practice which can be helped by, but doesn't require expert help by others. I have no idea why you think I'm 'removing skill required' when what I am saying is that skill can be learned without needing expert advice. Some software sure, but Photoshop? It's not like trying to operate LaTex without a manual or experience.

If I had to hire a visual artist to work on Photoshop but they never used it but could show really good work using ANY other software package, I'd hire them and simply expect them to learn how to use it.  It's not like Photoshop is the only software package in the world that uses layers and filters and brushes. It's all familiar stuff to anyone who's done that kind of work.

As this is pointless letís agree to disagree bug time.

Sure thing.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #309 on: August 02, 2021, 12:27:53 AM »
You and Jack both are the Kings of Straw.
No, only the strawmen you set up to knock down.

You decide Iím a narcissist, then attack me on that basis. Classic Strawman make something up and attack that.
No, that would be an ad-hom.
But that wasn't the entire argument was it?
Instead that was a note after the argument.
He wasn't using a claim of you being a narcissist to dismiss your claim, instead he demonstrated the problem with your claim and then stated you were a narcissist.
But of course, rather than actually address the argument, you yet again strawman him.

I supported a claim made by B, Jack decided to refute it by saying he could use experiments and observations. I asked Jack what those experiments and observations were! And I keep asking him and he keeps avoiding revealing them!

Tell me how the hell can that be considered a Strawman!
Because what I actually did was object to the claim Brawndo made and provided a logical argument showing that it is false, by virtue of showing that if that was the case, no one could know the shape of Earth.

But rather than focus on that at all, you continually strawman and try to shift the burden of proof.

Justify it! Why because it happens to be true? Itís my position Jack.
No, because it happens to be pure BS and you refuse to provide any justification for it, instead continually deflecting and strawmanning.

I donít see any way you could do it thatís not been done before.
And yet again you strawman.
Again, who said to come up with a brand new, never before done method?
NO ONE!
But there you go continually pretending they did so you can attack that strawman rather than the actual argument being made.

It truly is pathetic.

I donít think there is any experiment you could do all on your own with no assistance. Thatís my justification.
That isn't a justification, that is a baseless claim.
And it still doesn't address the actual issue.
Again, Brawndo claimed the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand the shape of Earth was to study the literature on what the subject matter experts SAY EARTH IS.
Doing experiments, even with the help of others, still doesn't fall under just accepting what the experts say Earth is, and as such is a different possible that refutes the claim.

Stop attacking strawmen and actually defend the real issue.
Show that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to understand the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says Earth is.

You after 11 pages have yet to disprove my stance.
It was disproven right from the start.

Letís stick to the point Jack. No more deflection or Strawmen!
I agree with B you say he is wrong because you can do it all on your own.
So you say no more deflection or strawmen, yet you then immediately deflect from the issue and set up a strawman to attack.

Here was my response to him:
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
If that truly was the case, then no one could ever possibly understand the shape of Earth.
Notice how I am not saying I can do it all on my own, or experts are useless or anything like that?
Notice how instead I am stating that his claim would mean no one could know the shape of Earth.

Again, the counter claim is not that I can do it all on my own. The counterclaim is that you do not NEED to just ACCEPT WHAT AN EXPERT SAYS EARTH IS, and that if that was the case, then no one could know the shape of Earth.
Do you understand that?
Again, do you understand the difference between just accepting what they say Earth is, vs doing an experiment with some help?
If not, you need help. I recommend contacting an ESL school so you can understand basic English.

If you really want me to start providing experiments, then first claim that as far as you know, there is no experiment ever conceived or carried out which demonstrates that Earth is round or that could be used to show Earth is round, and thus you believe Earth is round, purely on faith; and accept that to show the position is wrong, I don't need to carry out experiments all by myself, nor do I need to come up with new ones.
If you aren't willing to do the former, then that shows that you KNOW that these experiments exist, and it is extreme dishonesty for you to pretend they don't and demand others provide them.
If you aren't willing to do the latter, then you aren't interested in actually trying to argue the issue, and instead just want to stick to strawmen to pretend you are correct.

All you now need to do is prove it!
No, I don't.
Again, the burden of proof was initially on Brawndo, but then you picked it up when you chose to defend him.

And regardless of who the burden of proof is on, I have proven the claim wrong.

Again, this argument, that you are yet to even attempt to refute, that you cannot explain any fault with, proves Brawndo's claim wrong:
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.

So if you want to stop with the strawmen and deflection, then deal with that argument. Either accept it and accept that you and Brawndo are wrong, or clearly explain what step you think is wrong and why.

If you want to try to defend a different argument, then go start a new thread, make that argument, and have people object to that.

Oh. You need some help now! Help precisely with what? Please describe what is the nature of the activity that you may need help with?

The whole notion of you thinking you could just use an off the shelf experiment is ridiculous as that is just the same as using expert advice! As in doing the experiment you are accepting the expertise of the originator of the experiment.

I have no idea what you imagine you are trying to accomplish by your screeds of rubbish.

Itís simple he said you said.

He said ask an expert, you said no experts required!

You said you could use experiments

So just what are these experiments. Why donít you describe them then we can all go home.

What is the point of constantly just repeating yourself when I donít agree with your warped analysis!

Just describe the experiment for gods sake!

There are no actual experts on the shape of the earth, why in earth would we need them! but there are experts on other things, like all the various pilots, engineers and scientists of various flavours who have visited the ISS.


*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #310 on: August 02, 2021, 04:25:09 AM »
Watch the Sun set.  Look at a ball close up.  Plot the stars, ie draw their pathways, use structures to mark the stars locations (like Stonehenge) Look at the moon, Observe it long enough to notice how the shadows move on it. 
How much of technology do we have to abandon so you won't say it's expert help?  If we can use anything not in orbit, call a friend who lives far away, describe your sunset while it is not sunset for them.  Look at the other planets with a telescope, notice that they are round. 

There, experiments provided without being designed by an expert, some without any modern technology. 

Now, where did the first expert come from? 

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #311 on: August 02, 2021, 05:53:44 AM »
Watch the Sun set.  Look at a ball close up.  Plot the stars, ie draw their pathways, use structures to mark the stars locations (like Stonehenge) Look at the moon, Observe it long enough to notice how the shadows move on it. 
How much of technology do we have to abandon so you won't say it's expert help?  If we can use anything not in orbit, call a friend who lives far away, describe your sunset while it is not sunset for them.  Look at the other planets with a telescope, notice that they are round. 

There, experiments provided without being designed by an expert, some without any modern technology. 

Now, where did the first expert come from?

You tell me where the first expert came from.

Do you actually think Stonehenge and all the other many stone circles in Europe where not built by experts over 5000 years ago? Experts in all sorts of areas existed during that period and before. Go into the British Museum in London and look at the beautifully crafted artefacts in stone and ivory that were carved by experts 50,000 , 60,000 and more years ago.

Do you think stones that are many many tons in weight could be cut and transported across the country from the Preseli Hills in south-west Wales to Salisbury Plain, the bluestones, without many kinds of expertise being involved?...and those were the smaller stones!

OK
You are looking at the stars and the moon, doing some drawings, then what?

All you have given is some vague description of some night time activity with no detail. Im not sure how you building a 'henge' would accomplish much! not that you could.

What actually are you trying to prove?

Experts in all sorts of things exist today.
Experts in all sorts of different things existed a long time ago.

How do you think the concept of barter came about?

One person who was an expert hunter could trade meat or fish for an expertly made arrow for his bow. Have you any idea how difficult it is to make an arrow that flies straight? The whole concept of need drove specialisms and brought about people becoming experts in many different things.

Thats why we have no need for, as Jack Black calls them, experts in the shape of the world. Everyone knows it's a globe there is no question mark over it. BUT there are other kinds of experts who because of what they do have that knowledge. Those would be the people to ask.

To prove what shape the world is without recourse to these experts or existing expert knowledge is impossible. Give it a go and see how you get on. Jack Black knows he is wrong and has tried desperately to muddy the waters, but to no avail.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16128
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #312 on: August 02, 2021, 06:27:50 AM »
Quote
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.

Go ahead and point out where JB's argument falls apart. Or post another wall of text to avoid the issue like you've been doing.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #313 on: August 02, 2021, 07:14:20 AM »
Watch the Sun set.  Look at a ball close up.  Plot the stars, ie draw their pathways, use structures to mark the stars locations (like Stonehenge) Look at the moon, Observe it long enough to notice how the shadows move on it. 
How much of technology do we have to abandon so you won't say it's expert help?  If we can use anything not in orbit, call a friend who lives far away, describe your sunset while it is not sunset for them.  Look at the other planets with a telescope, notice that they are round. 

There, experiments provided without being designed by an expert, some without any modern technology. 

Now, where did the first expert come from?

You tell me where the first expert came from.

Do you actually think Stonehenge and all the other many stone circles in Europe where not built by experts over 5000 years ago? Experts in all sorts of areas existed during that period and before. Go into the British Museum in London and look at the beautifully crafted artefacts in stone and ivory that were carved by experts 50,000 , 60,000 and more years ago.

Do you think stones that are many many tons in weight could be cut and transported across the country from the Preseli Hills in south-west Wales to Salisbury Plain, the bluestones, without many kinds of expertise being involved?...and those were the smaller stones!

OK
You are looking at the stars and the moon, doing some drawings, then what?

All you have given is some vague description of some night time activity with no detail. Im not sure how you building a 'henge' would accomplish much! not that you could.

What actually are you trying to prove?

Experts in all sorts of things exist today.
Experts in all sorts of different things existed a long time ago.

How do you think the concept of barter came about?

One person who was an expert hunter could trade meat or fish for an expertly made arrow for his bow. Have you any idea how difficult it is to make an arrow that flies straight? The whole concept of need drove specialisms and brought about people becoming experts in many different things.

Thats why we have no need for, as Jack Black calls them, experts in the shape of the world. Everyone knows it's a globe there is no question mark over it. BUT there are other kinds of experts who because of what they do have that knowledge. Those would be the people to ask.

To prove what shape the world is without recourse to these experts or existing expert knowledge is impossible. Give it a go and see how you get on. Jack Black knows he is wrong and has tried desperately to muddy the waters, but to no avail.
So critical thinking about evidence is not a thing for you.  If I wanted to find out the shape of the thing I was standing on, or at least a basic understanding of what it most likely is with no expert telling me to do things, I may get an understanding by doing those night time "activities", or observational experiments. 
I brought up Stonehenge as an example of building structures to mark star positions to assist in tracking.  Also no, the first person to try to lay out the stone piles and wood poles that would be replaced by the huge stones at Stonehenge didn't have an expert to tell them what to do, they developed the techniques to track the stars in their own way. 

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7050
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #314 on: August 02, 2021, 10:09:36 AM »
I'm still amazed that this discussion is on going.  One does not need an expert to gain knowledge. 
Rabinoz RIP

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #315 on: August 02, 2021, 12:42:53 PM »
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2021, 12:46:02 PM by Mikey T. »

Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #316 on: August 02, 2021, 03:15:58 PM »
The whole notion of you thinking you could just use an off the shelf experiment is ridiculous as that is just the same as using expert advice!
The perhaps instead of just repeatedly attacking that strawman of yours you would actually address the initial claim.

It's simple, he said:
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
What, a globe?
Notice what he is saying?
That the only possible way is to accept what the experts SAY EARTH IS!

That is not saying you need help. That is saying all you can do is just accept what they say earth is.
They say Earth is a globe, you accept that.

He did not say ask an expert for help, he said just accept that they say Earth is.

Understand the difference?
Going to stop strawmanning and deal with the actual issue?

As for the expanded claim of needing AN expert, note that that still applies to a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT!
Getting help from expert in Y to understand X is not included.

You said you could use experiments
So just what are these experiments.
Again, if you want me to provide some of these experiments, do these 2 things:
1 - Admit that these do not need to be brand new experiments that haven't been done before, and that you can get help.
2 - Claim that as far as you know, there are no observations or experiments that show or indicate Earth is round, and that you believe Earth is round purely on faith.

Again, if you aren't willing to do the former, then you are continuing to attack a strawman.
If you aren't willing to do the latter, then you show that you already know of these experiments and that you request for them is extremely dishonest.

What is the point of constantly just repeating yourself when I donít agree with your warped analysis!
That is a good question. Why do you keep repeating the same garbage, continually ignore what is said, and continuing ignoring a simple logical argument that shows you are wrong?

You tell me where the first expert came from.
Again, the point is that they didn't come from an already existing expert.
But the claim you are defending requires that they did.

So you need to tell us how the first expert came to be if the only way to obtain knowledge is by getting it from an expert.

Pointing out experts exist doesn't negate that.
It just shows the claim is wrong.

Again, the logical argument you are yet to refute shows that you are wrong.

If you want to defend the claim, deal with the argument.
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.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #317 on: August 03, 2021, 12:31:00 AM »
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?


Iím afraid thatís your warped understanding of what Iím saying. How you can conclude that is a classic example of your complete misunderstanding of the situation.

You fail to understand the incremental and at times chaotic way knowledge arose and the way in which advancements were made and how novices can become experts. The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

You appear to suggest that the difference between expert and non expert is digital. Like many organic quantities  its analogue in nature existing on a normal distribution.

Today to become an expert in a field normally demand a period of education followed by situations were experience can be gained. Itís no secret.

Could do better
D-

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #318 on: August 03, 2021, 12:51:28 AM »
The whole notion of you thinking you could just use an off the shelf experiment is ridiculous as that is just the same as using expert advice!
The perhaps instead of just repeatedly attacking that strawman of yours you would actually address the initial claim.

It's simple, he said:
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
What, a globe?
Notice what he is saying?
That the only possible way is to accept what the experts SAY EARTH IS!

That is not saying you need help. That is saying all you can do is just accept what they say earth is.
They say Earth is a globe, you accept that.

He did not say ask an expert for help, he said just accept that they say Earth is.

Understand the difference?
Going to stop strawmanning and deal with the actual issue?

As for the expanded claim of needing AN expert, note that that still applies to a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT!
Getting help from expert in Y to understand X is not included.

You said you could use experiments
So just what are these experiments.
Again, if you want me to provide some of these experiments, do these 2 things:
1 - Admit that these do not need to be brand new experiments that haven't been done before, and that you can get help.
2 - Claim that as far as you know, there are no observations or experiments that show or indicate Earth is round, and that you believe Earth is round purely on faith.

Again, if you aren't willing to do the former, then you are continuing to attack a strawman.
If you aren't willing to do the latter, then you show that you already know of these experiments and that you request for them is extremely dishonest.

What is the point of constantly just repeating yourself when I donít agree with your warped analysis!
That is a good question. Why do you keep repeating the same garbage, continually ignore what is said, and continuing ignoring a simple logical argument that shows you are wrong?

You tell me where the first expert came from.
Again, the point is that they didn't come from an already existing expert.
But the claim you are defending requires that they did.

So you need to tell us how the first expert came to be if the only way to obtain knowledge is by getting it from an expert.

Pointing out experts exist doesn't negate that.
It just shows the claim is wrong.

Again, the logical argument you are yet to refute shows that you are wrong.

If you want to defend the claim, deal with the argument.
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.


What actually is it you are trying to prove?

You have tied yourself up in knots of your own making deliberately trying to obscure the simple question at the heart of this argument.

Regardless of the rubbish you keep repeating the question is simple.

I agree with B, if you want to know the answer to the question, ask an expert.

You say you can provide your own expert free answer.

I asked you how?

I donít require any Ďjustificationí there are many Ďexpertsí out there where aspects of their daily jobs revolve around the earth being a globe. Think about it. Itís a long long list, from meteorologists to ships captains to space launch mission controllers. All work with the knowledge of the earth being a sphere yet none have this crazy title you mention, a expert in the shape of the earth. Such Ďspecialisedí expertise is not required! Possibly 3000 years ago it was, but not now. Just as specialists in flint tool making was a life or death skill 80,000 ago, but no longer.

You said you could prove, you tell me, by observations and experimentation, well go ahead and dazzle me with your brilliance!

Otherwise what is it you are trying to prove? What point is it you are trying to make?

Keep it simple Jack. You should consider a course in plain English.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #319 on: August 03, 2021, 01:22:16 AM »
The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

This is what B said, not what YOU said he said. You have deliberately attached irrelevant extras. for example:-

No where does he say or imply the word 'accept' thats YOUR invention. The word he used was UNDERSTAND. Show me where he said accept!

You said:-
He did not say ask an expert for help, he said just accept that they say Earth is.

Thats is YOUR own interpretation for your own warped ends. Its NOT what he said.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU INVENTED THE WORD ACCEPT NO WHERE DOES IT APPEAR IN B'S SENTANCE. THATS WHY IVE KEP IGNORING IT. UNDERSTAND!

You also said:-
As for the expanded claim of needing AN expert, note that that still applies to a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT!.

Where does he mention SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, he just says expert, another Jack Black invention.

You said:-
Claim that as far as you know, there are no observations or experiments that show or indicate Earth is round, and that you believe Earth is round purely on faith.
It was YOU who brought faith into this B said UNDERSTAND! That is not the same as faith. Another Jack Black misrepresentation and blatant lie.


You also said:-
So you need to tell us how the first expert came to be if the only way to obtain knowledge is by getting it from an expert.

Thats has got nothing to do with what B said, just another Jack Black lying red herring. The world we live in is currently FUL of experts. B was speaking about the present day. So stop with the lies and inventions Jack stick to the point.

I do wish you would stop lying Jack and making stuff up!

I will continue to ignore stuff you just make up. Stick to the point and reveal your own experiments and those devised by other experts. That is what this is all about. Go back and revisit what B actually said, not the extra word you have put into his mouth.


*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #320 on: August 03, 2021, 02:01:56 AM »
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?


Iím afraid thatís your warped understanding of what Iím saying. How you can conclude that is a classic example of your complete misunderstanding of the situation.

You fail to understand the incremental and at times chaotic way knowledge arose and the way in which advancements were made and how novices can become experts. The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

You appear to suggest that the difference between expert and non expert is digital. Like many organic quantities  its analogue in nature existing on a normal distribution.

Today to become an expert in a field normally demand a period of education followed by situations were experience can be gained. Itís no secret.

Could do better
D-
Make up you mind already.  Now you have completely reversed course.  Great, you agree with what I have been saying all along, experts are not the only way to gain knowledge. 
You get an F, for completely changing your stance yet trying to act as though it's everyone else's fault for "misunderstanding" your position.  Still can't admit you were wrong though.  This reversal of yours here is a perfect example of narcissism and dishonesty. 

*

Stash

  • 7842
  • I am car!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #321 on: August 03, 2021, 02:02:24 AM »
The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

I think you kind of answered this futile conversation yourself; Experts are a product of their dedication. Hence, in the tradition of the master/apprentice paradigm, said master must have achieved his/her mastery at some point, through dedication to their craft, no doubt. To the betterment of it, to the discovery of efficiencies and techniques through said dedication. There was a first master, as they did not enjoy the benefit of a master upon which they could rely as they were, well, the first master. So therein and unto itself proves that a master must not need an expert/master to become one. As there must be a beginning.

You're basically saying everything is derivative. And yes, the vast majority of everything is, but not everything. The part you are failing to see is the "but not everything".

If you disagree, how did the first master come to be?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #322 on: August 03, 2021, 03:29:51 AM »
What actually is it you are trying to prove?
If you could understand English and actually bothered to read what has been said, that would be quite obvious.
All I am proving is that Brawndo's claim is pure BS.
You do not just need to accept what an expert says. That is not the only way to obtain knowledge.
That is how religions work, not science.

You have tied yourself up in knots of your own making deliberately trying to obscure the simple question at the heart of this argument.
You sure do love your projection don't you?
Right from the start you completely ignored the question at the heart of this argument and refuse to address it at all.

I donít require any Ďjustificationí
Yes, you do.
You need to show that the only possible way to understand the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says it is.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
This is what B said, not what YOU said he said.
I have repeatedly referred to that statement, and at times referred to paraphrased versions with the same meaning.

No where does he say or imply the word 'accept' thats YOUR invention. The word he used was UNDERSTAND. Show me where he said accept!
No, his word was study, specifically in the phrase "study the current literature".
The accept part is a simplification from the only possible way being to study the literature on what the experts say Earth is.
So all you can do according to Brawndo is just accept what they say.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to explaining how you can reject what they say Earth is, yet still fit into that.

He did not say ask an expert for help, he said just accept that they say Earth is.
Thats is YOUR own interpretation for your own warped ends. Its NOT what he said.
He stated quite explicitly:
The only way is to study what the experts say Earth is.

That is not saying that the only way is to ask experts for help. It is saying you see what they say Earth is and just accept it.

As for the expanded claim of needing AN expert, note that that still applies to a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT!.
Where does he mention SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, he just says expert, another Jack Black invention.
Really?
Are you that blind or dishonest?
His quote, which you included above, with that part emphasised for you:
"The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is."

Can you see it now?
Going to admit you were wrong this time? Or will you again claim your ridiculous conspiracy?

You said:-
Claim that as far as you know, there are no observations or experiments that show or indicate Earth is round, and that you believe Earth is round purely on faith.
It was YOU who brought faith into this B said UNDERSTAND! That is not the same as faith. Another Jack Black misrepresentation and blatant lie.
You mean more pathetic dishonesty by way of strawmanning and quote mining from you?
This was directly in response to your demand to provide experiments. It was not stating a claim from him.
But if you already know that such experiments exist, that demand is extremely dishonest and just a pathetic deflection from the issue.
So if YOU want me to provide any experiments, YOU need to first claim that as far as you know, know such experiments exist, meaning there is no reason to think Earth is round, and that means it is taken on faith.

If you don't like that, and that means you will refuse to admit there are no experiments, then stop demanding as if you don't know they exist.

You also said:-
So you need to tell us how the first expert came to be if the only way to obtain knowledge is by getting it from an expert.
Thats has got nothing to do with what B said
It most certainly does, as the logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute clearly shows.

Again, if the only possibly way to obtain knowledge is to just accept what an expert says, then that means no one could ever have obtained the knowledge in the first place, and thus no one could ever become the first expert.
It cuts right to the heart of the BS.

If someone can get it without an expert just telling them it, that means that just accepting what an expert says is not the only possible way.

B was speaking about the present day.
Again, if you want to claim that the year magically changes it, you need to explain why it does, that means you need to explain just what stops us doing experiments now that were done in the past.
Otherwise, the time is entirely irrelevant.

I do wish you would stop lying Jack and making stuff up!
And I wish you stop with your pathetic strawmen and projections. You have yet to demonstrate a single lie on my part, but I have shown your dishonesty repeatedly.
Just like last time you tried to accuse me of lying, and lied in the process, in a way which is trivial to expose as a lie.

Grow up.

Stick to the point and reveal your own experiments
Again, I have provided what you need to do if you want me to reveal any experiments.
If you aren't going to meet those demands, there is no point providing any experiments to you.

So why not stick to the actual point, and deal with the logical argument that you are yet to even attempt to refute, the logical argument that you cannot show fault with?

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.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #323 on: August 03, 2021, 04:32:49 AM »
No Timmy isn't going to admit to being wrong about anything.  He is going to continue to try to spin his point to attempt to try to say he was saying the same thing all along.  Gaslighting takes time, small steps, but all of his attempts to lie and twist the story have been utter failures.  All he had to do when he realized that he was wrong, way back at the beginning of this bonfire of stupidity was to admit it and move on.  All of this mess could have been avoided and less people would be aware of how moronic Timmy is.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #324 on: August 03, 2021, 07:30:14 AM »
What actually is it you are trying to prove?
If you could understand English and actually bothered to read what has been said, that would be quite obvious.
All I am proving is that Brawndo's claim is pure BS.
You do not just need to accept what an expert says. That is not the only way to obtain knowledge.
That is how religions work, not science.

You have tied yourself up in knots of your own making deliberately trying to obscure the simple question at the heart of this argument.
You sure do love your projection don't you?
Right from the start you completely ignored the question at the heart of this argument and refuse to address it at all.

I donít require any Ďjustificationí
Yes, you do.
You need to show that the only possible way to understand the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says it is.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
This is what B said, not what YOU said he said.
I have repeatedly referred to that statement, and at times referred to paraphrased versions with the same meaning.

No where does he say or imply the word 'accept' thats YOUR invention. The word he used was UNDERSTAND. Show me where he said accept!
No, his word was study, specifically in the phrase "study the current literature".
The accept part is a simplification from the only possible way being to study the literature on what the experts say Earth is.
So all you can do according to Brawndo is just accept what they say.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to explaining how you can reject what they say Earth is, yet still fit into that.

He did not say ask an expert for help, he said just accept that they say Earth is.
Thats is YOUR own interpretation for your own warped ends. Its NOT what he said.
He stated quite explicitly:
The only way is to study what the experts say Earth is.

That is not saying that the only way is to ask experts for help. It is saying you see what they say Earth is and just accept it.

As for the expanded claim of needing AN expert, note that that still applies to a SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT!.
Where does he mention SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, he just says expert, another Jack Black invention.
Really?
Are you that blind or dishonest?
His quote, which you included above, with that part emphasised for you:
"The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is."

Can you see it now?
Going to admit you were wrong this time? Or will you again claim your ridiculous conspiracy?

You said:-
Claim that as far as you know, there are no observations or experiments that show or indicate Earth is round, and that you believe Earth is round purely on faith.
It was YOU who brought faith into this B said UNDERSTAND! That is not the same as faith. Another Jack Black misrepresentation and blatant lie.
You mean more pathetic dishonesty by way of strawmanning and quote mining from you?
This was directly in response to your demand to provide experiments. It was not stating a claim from him.
But if you already know that such experiments exist, that demand is extremely dishonest and just a pathetic deflection from the issue.
So if YOU want me to provide any experiments, YOU need to first claim that as far as you know, know such experiments exist, meaning there is no reason to think Earth is round, and that means it is taken on faith.

If you don't like that, and that means you will refuse to admit there are no experiments, then stop demanding as if you don't know they exist.

You also said:-
So you need to tell us how the first expert came to be if the only way to obtain knowledge is by getting it from an expert.
Thats has got nothing to do with what B said
It most certainly does, as the logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute clearly shows.

Again, if the only possibly way to obtain knowledge is to just accept what an expert says, then that means no one could ever have obtained the knowledge in the first place, and thus no one could ever become the first expert.
It cuts right to the heart of the BS.

If someone can get it without an expert just telling them it, that means that just accepting what an expert says is not the only possible way.

B was speaking about the present day.
Again, if you want to claim that the year magically changes it, you need to explain why it does, that means you need to explain just what stops us doing experiments now that were done in the past.
Otherwise, the time is entirely irrelevant.

I do wish you would stop lying Jack and making stuff up!
And I wish you stop with your pathetic strawmen and projections. You have yet to demonstrate a single lie on my part, but I have shown your dishonesty repeatedly.
Just like last time you tried to accuse me of lying, and lied in the process, in a way which is trivial to expose as a lie.

Grow up.

Stick to the point and reveal your own experiments
Again, I have provided what you need to do if you want me to reveal any experiments.
If you aren't going to meet those demands, there is no point providing any experiments to you.

So why not stick to the actual point, and deal with the logical argument that you are yet to even attempt to refute, the logical argument that you cannot show fault with?

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.

Do you honestly think big writing makes your argument any more compelling?

Do you honestly think putting your own spin on what B said makes for a stronger argument?

What B said is historical fact. No where did he say all the things you are using to distort this argument.

No where did he say:-

Anything about 'subject matter experts", that was YOU who introduced that, a Jack black Invention.

No where did he say anything about 'faith', that was your own Jack Black invention.

No where did he say 'accept' that was yet another Jack Black invention.

Hell Jack why don't you just make up your own statement why bother using what B actually said, when you just ignore it?

You then have the audacity to say this:-
Right from the start you completely ignored the question at the heart of this argument and refuse to address it at all.

Come on Jack its YOU who is ignoring what he actually said and then telling total lies about it. Its all for every one to see. Lets a remember this is what he said without your lying embellishments:-

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

What is the point of going all pedantic about a statement if you then just go and invent add ons that are not there! You tell me Jack.

To top it off you keep on raving about:-
So you need to tell us how the first expert came to be if the only way to obtain knowledge is by getting it from an expert.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? Just another Jack Black smoke screen. B's statement was one referring to the here and now not 100,000 years ago or some arbitrary date you pick out of thin air. How all the many many thousands of experts who just happen to have expert knowledge relating to the globe because of what they do came into to being is completely irrelevant. They exist they are real get over it Jack, stick to the original statement.

Do you deny there are experts out there from all sorts of varying disciplines who have direct knowledge of the nature of the globe? Do you imagine anyone of them would call themselves a subject matter expert, that subject being the shape of the globe!.... I don't think so Jack, think again and try and live in the real world and not one of your own invention.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

The only way to answer the above is as B says to study the current literature by that he most likely means books and online materials.  You read it and then you understand. No faith, no blindly accept, no need for your mythical subject matter expert, what ever that happens to be.

If you really want you could go all historical and repeat the Greeks experiment, OR you could read up and study about an other experiment and repeat that. Both would be as B says taking and gaining an understanding by reading expert knowledge.

If you read about another experiment, or as B states 'study' and then  repeat it, you by virtue of reading it have used expert knowledge. I know full well what you don't want to accept that, as do you.

Stick to the words Jack...no more lies and deception, you know you are wrong!

Why are you wrong? Because as I have been saying from who knows when, there is no other experiment of your own design that you could possibly do.

Prove me wrong Jack, but please no more repetition or dishonesty, stick to exactly what B  said. I know what you have said till now as its just repeat after repeat. So no more repetition of your lies and inventions.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #325 on: August 03, 2021, 07:32:42 AM »
No Timmy isn't going to admit to being wrong about anything.  He is going to continue to try to spin his point to attempt to try to say he was saying the same thing all along.  Gaslighting takes time, small steps, but all of his attempts to lie and twist the story have been utter failures.  All he had to do when he realized that he was wrong, way back at the beginning of this bonfire of stupidity was to admit it and move on.  All of this mess could have been avoided and less people would be aware of how moronic Timmy is.

Im not going to admit anything other than Im right about this particular argument. You for one have not put the slightest dent in it.

Doing what Jack does and making a whole bunch of nonsense proves nothing other than you like to pedal nonsense of your own devising.


Could try much harder
D - -

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #326 on: August 03, 2021, 07:39:19 AM »
The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

I think you kind of answered this futile conversation yourself; Experts are a product of their dedication. Hence, in the tradition of the master/apprentice paradigm, said master must have achieved his/her mastery at some point, through dedication to their craft, no doubt. To the betterment of it, to the discovery of efficiencies and techniques through said dedication. There was a first master, as they did not enjoy the benefit of a master upon which they could rely as they were, well, the first master. So therein and unto itself proves that a master must not need an expert/master to become one. As there must be a beginning.

You're basically saying everything is derivative. And yes, the vast majority of everything is, but not everything. The part you are failing to see is the "but not everything".

If you disagree, how did the first master come to be?


Stinky not very clever Red Herring

You dont say.

What year do you live in?

What year do you think this argument is relating to?

I live in 2021

I assume B lived or is living in 2021

Looking at the dates on all the comments this argument is taking place in 2021.

What happened or did not happen X thousands of years ago has no relevance to the specific statement we are discussing. Let me remind you:-

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

The statement is relating to the here and now to 2021. How the millions of experts out there all came into being, who cares? If you care you could always go ask them and report back.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #327 on: August 03, 2021, 07:40:11 AM »
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?


Iím afraid thatís your warped understanding of what Iím saying. How you can conclude that is a classic example of your complete misunderstanding of the situation.

You fail to understand the incremental and at times chaotic way knowledge arose and the way in which advancements were made and how novices can become experts. The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

You appear to suggest that the difference between expert and non expert is digital. Like many organic quantities  its analogue in nature existing on a normal distribution.

Today to become an expert in a field normally demand a period of education followed by situations were experience can be gained. Itís no secret.

Could do better
D-
Make up you mind already.  Now you have completely reversed course.  Great, you agree with what I have been saying all along, experts are not the only way to gain knowledge. 
You get an F, for completely changing your stance yet trying to act as though it's everyone else's fault for "misunderstanding" your position.  Still can't admit you were wrong though.  This reversal of yours here is a perfect example of narcissism and dishonesty.

Are you actually for real?

This is what we are discussing.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

Do try and keep up.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #328 on: August 03, 2021, 07:54:47 AM »
Quote
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.

Go ahead and point out where JB's argument falls apart. Or post another wall of text to avoid the issue like you've been doing.

I will tell you why it falls apart.

This is the statement, so kindly repeated by yourself.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

His 'logic' as you pasted, makes no sense in the real world. It just so happens that here, today on Planet Earth we have possibly millions of experts. Ive not actually did a head count but can we assume there are lots and lots of them. If you want you can do the actual head count.  These experts by virtu of what they do have knowledge on the shape of the earth, they come across the fact every day of their working life.
You can figure out who all these people might be. But none of them are these mythical subject specific experts Jack Black is raving about. While we have a need for rocket guidance experts, GPS satellite controllers, and meteorologists, etc etc.....we have NO need of a subject specific expert on the shape of the planet. Get real! Thats why has logic, if you can call it that, is totally mad.

The rub is I know you desperately want me to be wrong, but the reality is is totally correct in what I say. If Jack Black were totally honest and stuck to the actual words that B said he would soon realise that Im correct.....BUT he can't do that. He has to make up add ons to the statement that were just not there. If we are going to have an honest argument lets  all stick to what was actually said.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #329 on: August 03, 2021, 07:56:32 AM »
I'm still amazed that this discussion is on going.  One does not need an expert to gain knowledge.

So am I.

I take it you never went to school.

Or read a book?

Do you just listen to yourself?

It shows.