Why are Experts so feared?

Experts and who and what to believe. The question is how to differentiate and tell the good from the not so good?
Jack Black, based on what he says,apparently has the wherewithal to know which expert advice to trust and which to reject. Though how he achieves this is never revealed.
He maintains that personal experience especially his own is his gold standard. The question arises is how can he evaluate his own personal experience? The other is what is it about personal experience that in the eyes of Jack Black makes it preferable to expert experience? What Jack Black is inferring is that one’s own experience can produce results that are more accurate, more trustworthy that that of the combined experience of many thousands of people? What makes his personal experience special?
Let’s remember expert knowledge is produced through a systematic controlled process possibly involving many thousands of people often working in groups. Knowledge through individual experience has no independent checks, it’s all down to what the individual thinks often coloured and greatly modified by their own bias. It’s how flat earth belief operates.
The other problem with relying on personal experience is it’s severely limited in its scope, another aspect Jack Black deliberately avoids.
Jack Black  compares a belief in expert derived knowledge to be something akin to religious belief, something he never offers any rational proof. He just says it.
This, just saying it, is a theme that runs through all what Jack Black says. While arguing using an external authority is one thing Jack Black constantly argues from authority when the authority is no more than himself. In all his arguments he puts himself above all else using his argument that ‘personal experience’ especially his own trumps all.
He grants himself the ability to decide what is valid and what is not.
I would say people like Jack Black who place themselves as the judge and jury when it comes to knowing what is right are people not to be trusted.
His other obvious mode of behaviour is never to supply any facts or evidence to prove a point he is making, yet he expects everyone else to do just that. Why?
The reason Jack Black operates in this manner is because he thinks whatever he thinks is correct and right by virtue of him personally thinking it. He is his own expert, his very own religion. The thing that Jack Black worships above all else is himself. His belief is in self-idolatry. Something he shares with many flat earth advocates.

No
The problem is you blanket atated "trust experts" and applied it to everything despite the numerpus examples that he and i gave you.

Youre stubborn and a spazz.

Experts and who and what to believe. The question is how to differentiate and tell the good from the not so good?

Yes, that is fundamentally the question.
A question you hate and want to ignore at all costs.

It raises further questions, like how to tell when the expert is wrong? When should you believe it if you feel they are wrong, especially if you have plentiful personal experience which indicates they are wrong?
What happens when 2 experts contradict each other?

All questions which destroy your fantasy and cause you to flee and lie about people.

apparently has the wherewithal to know which expert advice to trust and which to reject.

Are you able to go a single post without lying about me?

preferable to expert experience?

What you are advocating for is accepting expert opinion, not expert experience. That is already one level of interpretation of the evidence.
But you aren't normally in a conversation with them. And have another level of interpretation from reading what they have said and trying to understand what that means.
And typically you also don't go straight for that.
Instead you typically read what someone else has said from reading what the expert says, and you then read that; throwing in another level of interpretation.
By that point you can be quite off.

What Jack Black is inferring is that one’s own experience can produce results that are more accurate, more trustworthy that that of the combined experience of many thousands of people?

No, merely that you can have experiences which show that those experts are incorrect.
That experts are not perfect.

The other problem with relying on personal experience is it’s severely limited in its scope, another aspect Jack Black deliberately avoids.

You mean another aspect you continually appeal to then dishonestly pretend that because your personal experience can't be used to learn everything you should entirely discard it including for plenty of things which you can use it for?

If you were honest you would recognise that that does absolutely nothing to my position regarding personal experience.
My position is about personal experience contradicting expert opinion.
So when you bring up something entirely outside the scope of personal experience, how would my position be in any way relevant?

But you aren't honest. You are desperate to be right, to pretend you should just blindly accept expert opinion.
So instead you dishonestly bring up these cases to pretend you can't use personal experience there, you should just blindly accept expert opinion when it contradicts your personal experiences.

Jack Black  compares a belief in expert derived knowledge to be something akin to religious belief, something he never offers any rational proof.

And another lie (2 actually).
I correctly state that blind acceptance of expert knowledge, as if that is the only possible way to obtain knowledge, where you ignore anything that contradicts it; is akin to religious belief.
Where you have experts as prophets/priests, as the only ones allowed to give out knowledge.
I have explained this, and justified it, many times, in the thread you needed to repeatedly lie in to pretend you weren't wrong.

Because you can't handle being wrong, you need to repeatedly lie about what I have said, and ignore all the times I have shown you are wrong.

In all his arguments he puts himself above all else using his argument that ‘personal experience’ especially his own trumps all.

No, I don't. Because I don't say it is MY personal experience that should be accepted.
So yet again you lie.

I would say people like Jack Black who place themselves as the judge and jury when it comes to knowing what is right are people not to be trusted.

You mean people like you?
People who entirely ignore arguments and instead just resort to insulting people and lying about them?

No
The problem is you blanket atated "trust experts" and applied it to everything despite the numerpus examples that he and i gave you.

Youre stubborn and a spazz.

What method do you personally use to decide which expert advice is correct and which is not?

The laughable point is in the very act of you placing yourself as a moderator of knowledge requires you to become a ‘self proclaimed quack expert’ the most dangerous kind.  The kind that, like you and Jack, who claim to have opinions on things they in reality know nothing of their own making about.
Why don’t you list your own most recent discoveries and list those areas on which you have proven expertise.
Of course you won’t. Because you can’t as your no more that a bag of wind that just repeats stuff they have read.
Like all self belief idiots, what gives you the intellectual right to evaluate any validated expert knowledge? What gives you the right to claim any intellectual high ground?
The problem is there are so many ‘sham’ self proclaimed  quack experts just like you and Jack out there who claim expertise on things they know nothing about.
Thats is the world we live in where everyone feels they have the libertarian right to become a self proclaimed expert on anything they wish. Its rife on this site its what flat earthers and others live on, self delusion.

The laughable point is in the very act of you placing yourself as a moderator of knowledge requires you to become a ‘self proclaimed quack expert’ the most dangerous kind.

No, it just requires you have a brain you are willing to use. Which I guess excludes you.

Why don’t you list your own most recent discoveries

What don't you stop with the continued pathetic deflections and deal with the issues of your cult?

Because you can’t as your no more that a bag of wind that just repeats stuff they have read.

Says the one who wants to just blindly parrot whatever they think an expert says rather than think and come up with their own words?

The problem is there are so many ‘sham’ self proclaimed  quack experts just like you and Jack out there who claim expertise on things they know nothing about.

You mean the problem is there is dishonest conmen like you, trying to con people into their religion by blatantly lying about others.

Again, where have I ever claimed to be an expert?
Can you provide a quote for that?
And if you can, can you then demonstrate that I know nothing about it?

In doing so, also please explain how you came to the conclusion that I know nothing about it and aren't actually an expert.
Then explain why YOU should be allowed to do that, i.e. evaluate which experts are really experts and which expert knowledge should be trusted; yet no one else is allowed to.

Its rife on this site its what flat earthers and others live on, self delusion.

It is certainly what you live on.

The cry of the delusional. Thats you Jack. One who claims to be able to divine the truth on all things through some mysterious omnipotent personal experience.

Lets just deal with one thing at a time Jack.

You quote me:-

I said "Experts and who and what to believe. The question is how to differentiate and tell the good from the not so good?”

(The truth is I never claimed to be able to do it, you are the one that claims they can and you are the one who, hates the questions and ignores it at all costs as we will see.)

Then you say:-

“Yes, that is fundamentally the question.
A question you hate and want to ignore at all costs.”

Come Jack if you are so clever and claim not to ignore it and not to hate it, while expounding expertise on all things ,how do YOU do it ? what’s the answer Jack?

Of course you won’t answer, you never do, its the one way the delusion, like yourself, hide from giving the game away and being found out.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

The truth will be laid bare in how you answer this question Jack.....or don't answer it!

Quote from: Timeisup on February 06, 2024, 12:06:06 AM

The laughable point is in the very act of you placing yourself as a moderator of knowledge requires you to become a ‘self proclaimed quack expert’ the most dangerous kind.

No, it just requires you have a brain you are willing to use. Which I guess excludes you.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 06, 2024, 12:06:06 AM

Why don’t you list your own most recent discoveries

What don't you stop with the continued pathetic deflections and deal with the issues of your cult?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 06, 2024, 12:06:06 AM

Because you can’t as your no more that a bag of wind that just repeats stuff they have read.

Says the one who wants to just blindly parrot whatever they think an expert says rather than think and come up with their own words?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 06, 2024, 12:06:06 AM

The problem is there are so many ‘sham’ self proclaimed  quack experts just like you and Jack out there who claim expertise on things they know nothing about.

You mean the problem is there is dishonest conmen like you, trying to con people into their religion by blatantly lying about others.

Again, where have I ever claimed to be an expert?
Can you provide a quote for that?
And if you can, can you then demonstrate that I know nothing about it?

In doing so, also please explain how you came to the conclusion that I know nothing about it and aren't actually an expert.
Then explain why YOU should be allowed to do that, i.e. evaluate which experts are really experts and which expert knowledge should be trusted; yet no one else is allowed to.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 06, 2024, 12:06:06 AM

Its rife on this site its what flat earthers and others live on, self delusion.

It is certainly what you live on.

Another battle of the semantics. But I must say it's a bit disconcerting seeing you refer to tiemeup as being part of a cult because he believes experts.

I have a couple of university level physics books. Do you want me to go through each of the 800 pages, doing every single experiment suggested, just so I know the university professors who wrote it, aren't lying? That is what you're saying, isn't it? If I automatically believe that everything in that book is cutting edge physics, does that make me a sheep and in the same cult as Tiemeup?

You do seem to fear experts, Jackoff. Why do you shun experts like you do? Why are you so petrified of them? Do you have something against those who study and prove their proficiency in a field by passing tests and essay papers?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 02, 2024, 05:34:57 AM

No
The problem is you blanket atated "trust experts" and applied it to everything despite the numerpus examples that he and i gave you.

Youre stubborn and a spazz.

What method do you personally use to decide which expert advice is correct and which is not?

The laughable point is in the very act of you placing yourself as a moderator of knowledge requires you to become a ‘self proclaimed quack expert’ the most dangerous kind.  The kind that, like you and Jack, who claim to have opinions on things they in reality know nothing of their own making about.
Why don’t you list your own most recent discoveries and list those areas on which you have proven expertise.
Of course you won’t. Because you can’t as your no more that a bag of wind that just repeats stuff they have read.
Like all self belief idiots, what gives you the intellectual right to evaluate any validated expert knowledge? What gives you the right to claim any intellectual high ground?
The problem is there are so many ‘sham’ self proclaimed  quack experts just like you and Jack out there who claim expertise on things they know nothing about.
Thats is the world we live in where everyone feels they have the libertarian right to become a self proclaimed expert on anything they wish. Its rife on this site its what flat earthers and others live on, self delusion.

Bias
External infleucne/ motivation
Human error


Of courseni wont... but i did.
As already explained to you.

Dig your heels in some more.





Human error:


The overall average error rate across diseases was estimated at 11.1%, but the rate ranges widely from 1.5% for heart attack to 62% for spinal abscess. The top cause of serious harm from misdiagnosis was stroke, which was found to be missed in 17.5% of cases.Jul 17, 2023
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org › ...
Report Highlights Public Health Impact of Serious Harms From ...

External influence




From the 1980s to mid 2000s, ExxonMobil was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to curtail global warming. For example, ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
ExxonMobil climate change denial - Wikipedia

Bias




Nature Journal
https://www.nature.com › articles
The discredited doctor hailed by the anti-vaccine movement
Oct 27, 2020 — The fraudulent work on 12 children promoted a non-existent connection between autism and the MMR vaccine, used against measles, mumps ...

Suck an egg

The cry of the delusional.

Thanks for summing up your post.
Because that is pretty much all you do. Cry because you are butthurt that you are wrong and can't defend your BS.

Thats you Jack. One who claims to be able to divine the truth on all things through some mysterious omnipotent personal experience.

See, this is a great example of your delusional crying; where you just make up pure BS about me.

The truth is I never claimed to be able to do it

Your actions demonstrate you believe you can, where pretty much the entire rest of your post is a judgement that I cannot possibly be an expert, and an attack on "‘sham’ self proclaimed quack experts" and "self belief idiots" and "who claim to have opinions on things they in reality know nothing of their own making about".

How do you distinguish between those you claim are idiots, and self-proclaims experts; vs those who are genuine experts?

you are the one who, hates the questions and ignores it at all costs as we will see.

No, I'm not.
That is yet another of your pathetic lies.
When a question is a pathetic deflection, I will point that out. But when it isn't, I will answer it.
That even includes times where the question is not asked a genuine question but as a rhetorical question to pretend there is a problem with what I have said, but it is actually pure BS.
It also includes times like this.

Come Jack if you are so clever ... while expounding expertise on all things

Again, what is your basis for this?
You sure are clinging to your delusions.

how do YOU do it ? what’s the answer Jack?

If you had bothered reading my previous posts you would see the answer.
Here it is again:

Right, I should remember, that is a very strange thing for you; someone who refuses to think.
Most people would understand easily. But not you.
You must have no idea what thinking actually involves.

It involves considering what the expert has said, what the statement could possible mean to see if you have actually understood or made assumptions about it, to see if it actually applies to the situation you are trying to discuss, to compare it to other statements made by other experts or even the same expert, to consider what is the basis of the claim (including what evidence is used to support it) and how it compares to your personal experience.

I know, it is a lot, so people like you likely will entirely fail.
You will read the statement, and blindly accept that your interpretation of the statement must certainly be true.
Just like sandokhan has done to try to claim reality is wrong.
It is amazing what BS can be spouted when people don't correctly understand the statement.

Of course you won’t answer, you never do, its the one way the delusion, like yourself, hide from giving the game away and being found out.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

And more delusion, this time just pathetic projection.

I do answer, and already did.
You don't like the answer, so you pretend I haven't.
This question is not a problem for me at all. Because it fits my worldview, which recognises the fact that experts are not infallible, and sometimes they will say things which are wrong, and people retelling it can also distort the meaning.

But it is a massive problem for your religion. Your religion which demands you just blindly accept whatever the expert says.
So the issue is how do YOU evaluate it? How YOU decide when to follow what the expert says vs when to not?
e.g. if an expert says it is fine to put your hand in a fire and you wont be burnt or feel pain, etc; do you accept that, or do you reject it?
When two experts say contradictory things, how do you evaluate which is telling the truth?

And more directly related to the most recent issue, how do you tell if someone is actually an expert, vs just pretending?

The truth will be laid bare in how you answer this question Jack.....or don't answer it!

You mean it has been laid bare, by me already answering in a previous post, and you predictably deflecting at all costs because it destroys your religion.

Another battle of the semantics.

Not a battle of semantics.
A battle of Timmy being unable to defend his cult and

But I must say it's a bit disconcerting seeing you refer to tiemeup as being part of a cult because he believes experts.

It is not merely that he believes experts. It is that he believes we should simply blindly accept whatever an expert says without thinking; even if it contradicts our own personal experience.
That is a cult.
That is just like how people in cult are taught to accept whatever the cult leader says without thinking and even if it contradicts their own personal experience.

That is what you're saying, isn't it?

No. That is nothing like what I am saying.
I am saying that if you have something that appears to contradict some aspect of that textbook, you should be free to explore that to see if the textbook is wrong; rather than simply discarding it and thinking you must be wrong just because it doesn't fit with orthodoxy.

You do seem to fear experts, Jackoff. Why do you shun experts like you do? Why are you so petrified of them? Do you have something against those who study and prove their proficiency in a field by passing tests and essay papers?

So now you really are joining the Timmy cult.
Clinging to his pathetic fantasy of what I allegedly believe, rather than going based upon my actions/words.

I have NEVER indicated I fear experts or shun them.
If you wish to claim such pure BS, why don't you try finding something to back it up.

To make it clear:
I do not fear experts. I do not shun them. I use their knowledge plenty of times. I am not petrified of them, or scared of them at all. That also means if I see something they say which is wrong, I will happily point out that incorrect statement, as I have done previously.
I have nothing against those who study and actually prove things.
But I do have things against people that misuse their credentials to promote BS; claims which are not supported by evidence.

Congrats Timmy, you got a new cult member.

While the experts at CERN are spending €20bn to unlock the secrets of the universe Jack Black is doing it all through personal experience in his garden shed.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/05/cern-atom-smasher-unlock-secrets-universe-large-hadron-collider

The question is who should we believe the experts or Jack?

And what exactly is the nature of Jacks personal experience in that it gives him insight into everything.

Possibly CERN should save all their cash and just ask Jack.

Come on timies.
Why you ignore me?
Are you so bad faithed and dishonest just like turbo and scepyy who wont answer how circles work?
Are yoy equally disengenous like them?



The expert veratasium youtubed, the expert researcher (and canadian smart guy), says experts can fail.
But hes an expert.
But he says experts can be wrong
But you said to blindly trust all experts no matter what.
But he says experts can be wrong.
But hes an wxpert im supposed to trust like you said.
So i should trust him and not trust him.


Mmmm....

Tiemeup isn't saying we should blindly accept all experts without thinking. He's saying you should err on the side of an expert as opposed to a non-expert.

What's wrong with that?

Likewise, Jackoff Black isn't saying we should blindly accept our personal experiences over the words of experts, but that personal experience can be a valuable tool in discerning if an expert is correct.

What's wrong with that?

But, it depends what the topic is, doesn't it? If we are talking vaccinations, things can get murky.

If we are talking the shape of the Earth where all academics are unanimous Earth is a sphere, is it not safer to err on the side of experts as opposed to video game player extraordinaire, Mork Sargent, who looks like he's had plastic surgery to look like a deer permanently caught in the headlights?

Apply common sense and there is barely an argument to be found here. You are both correct to an extent.

Come on timies.
Why you ignore me?
Are you so bad faithed and dishonest just like turbo and scepyy who wont answer how circles work?
Are yoy equally disengenous like them?



The expert veratasium youtubed, the expert researcher (and canadian smart guy), says experts can fail.
But hes an expert.
But he says experts can be wrong
But you said to blindly trust all experts no matter what.
But he says experts can be wrong.
But hes an wxpert im supposed to trust like you said.
So i should trust him and not trust him.


Mmmm....

Quote where Tiemeup said to blindly trust all experts no matter what? He didn't say that.

You should trust a reputable heart surgeon to do your triple heart bypass over your backyard mechanic. That's erring on the side of an expert.

Come on timies.
Why you ignore me?
Are you so bad faithed and dishonest just like turbo and scepyy who wont answer how circles work?
Are yoy equally disengenous like them?



The expert veratasium youtubed, the expert researcher (and canadian smart guy), says experts can fail.
But hes an expert.
But he says experts can be wrong
But you said to blindly trust all experts no matter what.
But he says experts can be wrong.
But hes an wxpert im supposed to trust like you said.
So i should trust him and not trust him.


Mmmm....

Firstly I never said:-

“But you said to blindly trust all experts no matter what”

That’s just not true. Try reading what I did say!

Ignoring you? Why do you feel that? Like all the things that are in your head it’s all your own creation. I play no part in what You feel. Thats all down to you.

Like Jack you totally misunderstand the whole expert concept. What you like to do, just like Jack, is to create a world where experts are all fallible that gives you and others the excuse  to ‘ignore them’ and present a constant stream of drivel and pretend instead , just like Turbo and Jack you are some self proclaimed expert. In reality all you know in terms of actual knowledge you have accepted has come from experts . Nothing you think you know of any significance had come through your own personal efforts. Only self delusion will lead one to think otherwise. In reality the world you live in is one created by experts. The car you drive, the computer you watch porn on, the electricity you consume, the city or town you live in….all created by a wealth of expertise with zero assistance from YOU.

While we can confirm some mature knowledge with simple experiments. Like calculating the speed of sound, confirming Ohms Law, Kirchhoff’s  laws and even Newtons Laws. The knowledge of each is already known and the methods you would use to confirm these laws is also already known. So don’t kid yourself into thinking you are some special person that can can discover all sorts of new knowledge, because in reality you can’t.

You can prove me wrong by simply listing some of the things you yourself have discovered. Jack had been asked that very same question and like all frauds he’s  run away rather than giving an answer.


Mature knowledge that is generally agreed by all experts and others like the shape of the earth and other fairly basic concepts is still bizarrely debated here! Why? Accepting that the earth is a sphere is not blindly accepting expert advice it’s using one’s intelligence. Those who choose to reject expert consensus are not displaying ‘free thinking’ in reality they are displaying flawed thinking driven by some personality disorder that drives them into believing in any old clap trap instead. What displays actual intelligence ? Believing what is in text books that is validated by hundreds of years scientific consensus along with all the input from modern technology that we ourselves can easily confirm? OR choosing to believe in the content of a video that is posted on the internet by some random individual that’s completely at odds with validated and accepted knowledge?

Do you honestly think that Turbo and Sceptimatic know something that has evaded the world of science? Do you think by them not ‘blindly accepting’ conventional validated mature scientific knowledge they are displaying some superior intellect? Or
Are they like Jack no more than delusion individuals with serious personality disorders ?
People who image they know things or posses special abilities other don’t is generally a sign of some psychotic disorder.

Jack Blacks view that personal experience will reveal all is pure nonsense as our own personal abilities and experiences are so restricted and limited in the real world.

In reality what is the range of your own knowledge or expertise? How many things do you claim mastery of? The truthful answer would be precious few if any. In what areas do  you yourself uncover new knowledge? I doubt you have ever had one single original thought that has expanded the area of human knowledge. Few do. Which is why great thinkers and scientists are so revered for what they to is extremely difficult, rare and requires both a huge intellect and huge resources to make any discoveries.

Like Jack you trot out a line of flawed thinking in some effort to justify what you post.

The question is who should we believe the experts or Jack?

You act like they are 2 distinct, mutually exclusive options.

But thanks for yet again showing your dishonesty.

Last time you said this:

you are the one who, hates the questions and ignores it at all costs as we will see.

And what happened? I answered the question and you fled from it.

Last time you said this:

Of course you won’t answer, you never do, its the one way the delusion, like yourself, hide from giving the game away and being found out.
Deflect, deflect, deflect.
The truth will be laid bare in how you answer this question Jack.....or don't answer it!

So the truth has been laid bare.
You are dishonest and delusional, and projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

You can't answer the question, because you know it destroys your religion.

So yet again, you just deflect and try to hide from the question. As you would say
"Of course you won’t answer, you never do, its the one way the delusion, like yourself, hide from giving the game away and being found out."

So care to answer:
 How YOU decide when to follow what the expert says vs when to not?
e.g. if an expert says it is fine to put your hand in a fire and you wont be burnt or feel pain, etc; do you accept that, or do you reject it?
When two experts say contradictory things, how do you evaluate which is telling the truth?

And more directly related to the most recent issue, how do you tell if someone is actually an expert, vs just pretending?
"The truth will be laid bare in how you answer this question [Timmy].....or don't answer it!"

And for your latest quote, when have I ever demanded people trust me over "the experts"?

And what exactly is the nature of Jacks personal experience in that it gives him insight into everything.

Where have I claimed to have insight into everything?

Firstly I never said:-
“But you said to blindly trust all experts no matter what”

Not directly, but that is certainly your implication.

All the way back from the thread where you chose to defend the claim:
"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."
Likewise, it is implied when you entirely ignore the topic of the thread and bring up that experts say Earth is round.

Like Jack you totally misunderstand the whole expert concept.

You mean like Jack they correct understand what an expert is and is not; while you continue to misunderstand and treat them like prophets as a divine source of knowledge.

What you like to do, just like Jack, is to create a world where experts are all fallible that gives you and others the excuse  to ‘ignore them’ and present a constant stream of drivel and pretend instead

You are the one appealing to a fantasy of your own construction.

What we do, is recognise the FACT that experts are fallible.
That means they can be wrong.
That you can have experts contradict each other.
That you need some way to evaluate if someone is an expert or just pretending.

just like Turbo and Jack you are some self proclaimed expert.

Again, this is your fantasy.
Where have I ever proclaimed to be an expert?

No where.
Instead you desperately cling to this fantasy and the below, where you wish to pretend anyone who challenges you is a complete imbecile that proclaims to be an expert.

Meanwhile, we do have this quote from you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2325858#msg2325858

I am an expert in many things.

So it appears YOU are the "self-proclaimed expert".

In reality all you know in terms of actual knowledge you have accepted has come from experts

That is your fantasy, which you have absolutely no basis for.
You have no idea who we are, what we have done, and what (if anything) we have discovered.
You have a tiny bit of information, but that tiny bit you were given would lean opposite your claim..

The one who is deluding themselves here is you.

You can prove me wrong by simply listing some of the things you yourself have discovered.

Which, as I'm pretty sure I have explained before would be entirely pointless.
If we did list anything you would likely just accuse of lying. Or demand we provide a whole bunch of documents to prove our identity which you could then use to commit fraud.

We are under no obligation to dox ourselves to refute your religious BS.
Especially as this is entirely irrelevant to your pathetic cult.

Jack had been asked that very same question and like all frauds he’s  run away rather than giving an answer.

Says the one that has been spending this entire threading running away from answering simple questions directly related to the topic.
Says the one who in other threads entirely ignores the topic of discussion to throw out insults while ignoring any questions.

Those who choose to reject expert consensus are not displaying ‘free thinking’ in reality they are displaying flawed thinking driven by some personality disorder that drives them into believing in any old clap trap instead.

No more so than those who choose to just blindly accept what experts say are not displaying 'free thinking' and instead are displaying flawed thinking driven by some personality disortder that drives them into believing in any old clap trap said by "experts".

Again, free thinking is actually THINKING about what the experts say, including comparing it to personal experience.
Just blindly accepting what a text book says without thinking is NOT intelligence.

And a great way to demonstrate that is comparing performance in exams and other types of assessments.
Idiots can often regurgitate material from a textbook, but cannot apply it to solve problems.
Yet that is the kind of stupidity you advocate.

Believing what is in text books that is validated by hundreds of years scientific consensus along with all the input from modern technology that we ourselves can easily confirm? OR choosing to believe in the content of a video that is posted on the internet by some random individual that’s completely at odds with validated and accepted knowledge?

OR actually doing the test to confirm it?

Do you honestly think that Turbo and Sceptimatic know something that has evaded the world of science? Do you think by them not ‘blindly accepting’ conventional validated mature scientific knowledge they are displaying some superior intellect? Or
Are they like Jack no more than delusion individuals with serious personality disorders ?

You mean are they like your fantasy, and yourself?

Jack Blacks view that personal experience will reveal all is pure nonsense

Sure, if by "pure nonsense" you mean a creation of your own deluded mind.
As again, I have never indicated anything like that.

Which is why great thinkers and scientists are so revered for what they to is extremely difficult, rare and requires both a huge intellect and huge resources to make any discoveries.

And the willingness to put up with cultists like you that will shun them and reject them and insult them for not following orthodoxy.

Like Jack you trot out a line of flawed thinking in some effort to justify what you post.

If this was true, you would be able to show those flaws in what we actually say, and answer the questions directly related to the topic; instead of continually deflecting away from questions and blatantly lying about what people have said, where you construct a strawman to knock down.

The strawmen you construct have flawed thinking. But that just shows YOU are producing this flawed thinking.

You are still yet to even come close to challenging what we have said.

Tiemeup isn't saying we should blindly accept all experts without thinking.

Yes, he is.
That is why he fled from the simple question about putting hands in a fire.
Because it shows that his religion is wrong.

If he was not suggesting that, he would have no issue with saying you trust personal experience or think and don't put your hand in the fire.

In a previous thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.0)
they chose to defend the claim:
"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"
And their posts in that thread show them extending that to other areas.

And with wonderful quotes like this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2325435#msg2325435):
"Pray tell me how anyone could learn anything without having access to expert knowledge and the fruits of that knowledge"

And likewise in other threads, where they just entirely ignore arguments and instead provide other claims ("from experts") which in no way address the argument, to suggest the person is wrong.

That is not "erring on the side of an expert". That is just accepting what the expert says without thinking.

But, it depends what the topic is, doesn't it? If we are talking vaccinations, things can get murky.

Yes, very murky. Especially given "experts" said that vaccines cause autism.

If we are talking the shape of the Earth where all academics are unanimous Earth is a sphere, is it not safer to err on the side of experts as opposed to video game player extraordinaire, Mork Sargent, who looks like he's had plastic surgery to look like a deer permanently caught in the headlights?

And when FEers like claiming there is a conspiracy, and someone claims to have something which shows a problem, is it better to explain what is wrong with their alleged problem; or is it better to just appeal to experts saying Earth is round?

The irony about this argument are the facts and evidence that is liberty sprinkled over this forum that make a mockery of all Jack’s claims.

Jack and others appear to have a problem with accepting knowledge experts have produced that has been both accepted and validated by the whole expert scientific community. They say accepting such knowledge is no more than 'blind acceptance' I say accepting such proven knowledge is using intelligent judgment.

This is a far cry from disputed facts about new and emerging knowledge. Things that Jack and his pals have no way to determine the validity of.  Experts are always going to disagree about new discoveries as it’s the way science has always worked. To join in on these disagreement one has to have a level of both knowledge and understanding that makes one intellectually fit to do so. Imagining you can have an opinion on a subject you have no actual real knowledge or experience in is delusional. A common condition displayed by users of this forum. Using this situation of experts disagreeing with new knowledge as an excuse to then disparage validated mature expert knowledge  is the most audacious example of a strawman.

The real irony comes in when Sandokhan starts making ludicrous claims that are all based on the very rejection of mature validated expert knowledge. This prompts Jack and others to claim bitterly about screaming for proof! Talk about inconsistent thought and behaviour of people who want things all ways.

Jack is always screaming for proof and calling people liars who disagree with him as it’s his default. Just read his posts. Here are just a few picked comments from Jack all on the same theme of demanding proof:-

"How about you try explaining just what there is to explain?

Which you are also yet to establish is anything to explain.
Instead, you just have bold claims about it.

Until you provide such a footage, we have no more reason to believe your claim, than believe an object filmed through a heat haze is magically changing shape and moving around all over the place.

Claims you resort to just repeating without any serious attempt to justify them.

That isn't how the burden of proof works.
You made the claim, so the burden is on you to prove it."

Jack also plays the expert science card:-

He says:-
“So why do you keep making it about paranoid BS instead of science?”

What science is Jack referring to, agreed and validated expert science or his own?

He then invokes experts in the same breath as rejecting them! How does he tell which to accept and which to reject?  The truth is he never says. But he says this:-

“They have honestly made observations about the sky.
Observations which you don't like, so you reject and claim as lies, even though you have nothing to support it being a lie.
You further try to support this fantasy of yours with more lies.”

Who are ‘they’ Jack what experts are you referring to and how have you come to the conclusion that your ’expert they’ are any different from my ‘expert they’? How can you say YOU have not just blindly accepted what YOUR ‘they’ say?

Jack on the other hand NEVER presents any proof to back any claim he makes. He maintains his personal experience is his gold standard. I have asked him on numerous occasion how he obtains his ‘personal experience’ on all the subjects he claims to know about.......something he constantly refuses to do. A clear mark of the intellectual fraud.

How does he differentiate between his ‘they experts’ and others? I don’t know because he never says. What he does do is continually contradict himself to suit his own narrow-minded beliefs.

He recently claimed some expertise on Optics, Norse mythology, Islam, Astronomy to name but a few. I ask Jack how does he come by knowledge on these diverse areas with out expert assistance and how can he personally validate knowledge about any of those subjects by personal experience? Its just not possible.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

Tiemeup isn't saying we should blindly accept all experts without thinking.

Yes, he is.
That is why he fled from the simple question about putting hands in a fire.
Because it shows that his religion is wrong.

If he was not suggesting that, he would have no issue with saying you trust personal experience or think and don't put your hand in the fire.

In a previous thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.0)
they chose to defend the claim:
"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"
And their posts in that thread show them extending that to other areas.

And with wonderful quotes like this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2325435#msg2325435):
"Pray tell me how anyone could learn anything without having access to expert knowledge and the fruits of that knowledge"

And likewise in other threads, where they just entirely ignore arguments and instead provide other claims ("from experts") which in no way address the argument, to suggest the person is wrong.

That is not "erring on the side of an expert". That is just accepting what the expert says without thinking.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

But, it depends what the topic is, doesn't it? If we are talking vaccinations, things can get murky.

Yes, very murky. Especially given "experts" said that vaccines cause autism.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

If we are talking the shape of the Earth where all academics are unanimous Earth is a sphere, is it not safer to err on the side of experts as opposed to video game player extraordinaire, Mork Sargent, who looks like he's had plastic surgery to look like a deer permanently caught in the headlights?

And when FEers like claiming there is a conspiracy, and someone claims to have something which shows a problem, is it better to explain what is wrong with their alleged problem; or is it better to just appeal to experts saying Earth is round?

Come on Jack put your money where your mouth is and show how YOU would prove the shape of the earth by you very own novel and new method untouched by any expert assistance! You claimed to have one but refused to reveal it. I call you both a liar and a fraud.

You could always prove me wrong by revealing your secret method........but of course you won't as none exists.

Haha naaah guy

You tried to call me out.
When it failed, i noticed you only reaponded to jackBb msg.

But i give you no kudos for reapnding after i called you out.

Because your word salad is just your own gymnastics trying to change what you said.

Your "Trust the expert" is spanning multpule threads and is over 1yr long from what i recall.


However

You seem to be of the belief that while your Function sratement {knowledge is ONLY derived feom expert}

Vs

Mine nad jacks Function statement is {knowledge is cumulative from humanity and while can belearned from an expert it can ALSO be self learned}


If not clear - Maybe someone whos better at programmer logic/ math can clarify my statement.


In summary:
You
Are
A
Spazz



And only a sith lives in absolutes.

Aaaahahaaah
Looks like jack called you out pretty good.


Do a sceppy and purge your post history.
Backpedal.
Move th goal posts.
Never own up to your failings.
"THATS ON YOU" whos ego cant admit theyre wrong.
Try humiloty some times.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 07, 2024, 02:43:59 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

Tiemeup isn't saying we should blindly accept all experts without thinking.

Yes, he is.
That is why he fled from the simple question about putting hands in a fire.
Because it shows that his religion is wrong.

If he was not suggesting that, he would have no issue with saying you trust personal experience or think and don't put your hand in the fire.

In a previous thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.0)
they chose to defend the claim:
"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"
And their posts in that thread show them extending that to other areas.

And with wonderful quotes like this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2325435#msg2325435):
"Pray tell me how anyone could learn anything without having access to expert knowledge and the fruits of that knowledge"

And likewise in other threads, where they just entirely ignore arguments and instead provide other claims ("from experts") which in no way address the argument, to suggest the person is wrong.

That is not "erring on the side of an expert". That is just accepting what the expert says without thinking.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

But, it depends what the topic is, doesn't it? If we are talking vaccinations, things can get murky.

Yes, very murky. Especially given "experts" said that vaccines cause autism.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

If we are talking the shape of the Earth where all academics are unanimous Earth is a sphere, is it not safer to err on the side of experts as opposed to video game player extraordinaire, Mork Sargent, who looks like he's had plastic surgery to look like a deer permanently caught in the headlights?

And when FEers like claiming there is a conspiracy, and someone claims to have something which shows a problem, is it better to explain what is wrong with their alleged problem; or is it better to just appeal to experts saying Earth is round?

Come on Jack put your money where your mouth is and show how YOU would prove the shape of the earth by you very own novel and new method untouched by any expert assistance! You claimed to have one but refused to reveal it. I call you both a liar and a fraud.

You could always prove me wrong by revealing your secret method........but of course you won't as none exists.

What a stupid question.

He cant unknow something he already knows.




Heres a better question - who discovered calculus?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 02:49:32 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 07, 2024, 02:43:59 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

Tiemeup isn't saying we should blindly accept all experts without thinking.

Yes, he is.
That is why he fled from the simple question about putting hands in a fire.
Because it shows that his religion is wrong.

If he was not suggesting that, he would have no issue with saying you trust personal experience or think and don't put your hand in the fire.

In a previous thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.0)
they chose to defend the claim:
"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"
And their posts in that thread show them extending that to other areas.

And with wonderful quotes like this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2325435#msg2325435):
"Pray tell me how anyone could learn anything without having access to expert knowledge and the fruits of that knowledge"

And likewise in other threads, where they just entirely ignore arguments and instead provide other claims ("from experts") which in no way address the argument, to suggest the person is wrong.

That is not "erring on the side of an expert". That is just accepting what the expert says without thinking.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

But, it depends what the topic is, doesn't it? If we are talking vaccinations, things can get murky.

Yes, very murky. Especially given "experts" said that vaccines cause autism.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

If we are talking the shape of the Earth where all academics are unanimous Earth is a sphere, is it not safer to err on the side of experts as opposed to video game player extraordinaire, Mork Sargent, who looks like he's had plastic surgery to look like a deer permanently caught in the headlights?

And when FEers like claiming there is a conspiracy, and someone claims to have something which shows a problem, is it better to explain what is wrong with their alleged problem; or is it better to just appeal to experts saying Earth is round?

Come on Jack put your money where your mouth is and show how YOU would prove the shape of the earth by you very own novel and new method untouched by any expert assistance! You claimed to have one but refused to reveal it. I call you both a liar and a fraud.

You could always prove me wrong by revealing your secret method........but of course you won't as none exists.

What a stupid question.

He cant unknow something he already knows.




Heres a better question - who discovered calculus?

And your point is?
As for the calculus, if you want to dive into history, though the relevance escapes me. I think that’s a question best left for good old Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. though one thing I can say Jack Black had no hand in it despite any claim he may care to make. Though I do wonder what he makes of their extraordinary mathematical expertise and if his own personal experience agrees with their independent findings!!!

Aaaahahaaah
Looks like jack called you out pretty good.


Do a sceppy and purge your post history.
Backpedal.
Move th goal posts.
Never own up to your failings.
"THATS ON YOU" whos ego cant admit theyre wrong.
Try humiloty some times.

Are you drunk? Sure spells like it.

I notice you are yet again demonstrating your dishonesty and delusional nature by yet again avoiding the question:
How YOU decide when to follow what the expert says vs when to not?
e.g. if an expert says it is fine to put your hand in a fire and you wont be burnt or feel pain, etc; do you accept that, or do you reject it?
When two experts say contradictory things, how do you evaluate which is telling the truth?

And more directly related to the most recent issue, how do you tell if someone is actually an expert, vs just pretending?
"The truth will be laid bare in how you answer this question [Timmy].....or don't answer it!"

Every time you avoid these simple questions you just further demonstrate your dishonesty and how your cult is doomed to failure.

The irony about this argument are the facts and evidence that is liberty sprinkled over this forum that make a mockery of all Jack’s claims.

You mean that make a mockery of all YOUR claims.
The facts sprinkled throughout these forums show you need to repeatedly lie about me to pretend I am wrong.
It also shows how people can get things entirely wrong, even when appealing to experts to try to back them up.

Jack and others appear to have a problem

Again, stop asserting your delusional BS as if it is fact, and instead provide quotes.

Experts are always going to disagree about new discoveries as it’s the way science has always worked.

And they can also disagree about things which have been "known" for quite some time.
e.g. see Newton and Einstein.

You would dismiss as the delusional fools, self-proclaimed experts, and so on.
All because they dared to defy the orthodoxy.

To join in on these disagreement one has to have a level of both knowledge and understanding that makes one intellectually fit to do so.

Which clearly excludes you from pretty much any discussion on this site.
Is that why you aren't answering the questions?
You don't have the required knowledge or understanding to be able to?

Imagining you can have an opinion on a subject you have no actual real knowledge or experience in is delusional.

People can have an opinion on anything. There is nothing delusional about that.
The issue comes in how they place their opinion against things like evidence.

A common condition displayed by users of this forum.

Especially by you.
But you don't stop at opinion. You assert your baseless opinions as facts.

Using this situation of experts disagreeing with new knowledge as an excuse to then disparage validated mature expert knowledge  is the most audacious example of a strawman.

No, using this facts that experts disagree on some topics, to show experts are not infallible, quite clearly demonstrates that just blindly accepting what they say is a path to stupidity, not knowledge.
You know this destroys your fantasy, so you make excuses.

The real irony comes in when Sandokhan starts making ludicrous claims that are all based on the very rejection of mature validated expert knowledge.

No, the irony comes in when people like Sandokhan starts making claims based upon peer reviewed scientific publications; which you just dismiss as nonsense because it doesn't fit your fantasy.

Talk about inconsistent thought and behaviour of people who want things all ways.

You mean yours?
My behaviour is consistent.
I am not the one saying to just believe what someone says. That is you.
I'm saying we should be able to form opinions based upon evidence and rational arguments.

So yet again you are lying about me.

Jack is always screaming for proof and calling people liars who disagree with him as it’s his default.

Wrong again.
When people spout pure BS, I ask for proof, and/or explain why it is wrong.

When people continually the repeat the same false claims (or similar false claims) I will correctly describe them as liars.
This is in no way inconsistent with anything I have said.

Jack also plays the expert science card:-
He says:-
“So why do you keep making it about paranoid BS instead of science?”

You mean you yet again lie about what I say.

He then invokes experts in the same breath as rejecting them!

Yet you cannot provide a single quote where I am just rejecting all experts can you?
No.
Because I haven't.
Instead, you need to continually cling to these pathetic lies.
You need to construct an elaborate fantasy, a complete strawman, to pretend I am wrong.

How does he tell which to accept and which to reject?  The truth is he never says.

You mean I said, and you then entirely ignored, only to lie and claim I never answer the question, only for me to answer it again, and ask YOU again, only for you to yet again ignore the question.
All because you know these kind of questions destroy your cult.

Here is a link to the post again:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92161.msg2416125#msg2416125
Care to stop lying?

Jack on the other hand NEVER presents any proof to back any claim he makes.

Except I have, plenty of times; which people like you just proceed to ignore.

He maintains his personal experience is his gold standard.

No, I don't.
That is yet another lie of yours.

I have asked him on numerous occasion how he obtains his ‘personal experience’ on all the subjects he claims to know about.

i.e. you entirely ignore what I say, construct an elaborate strawman, and then attack that.
A clear mark of the intellectual fraud.

What he does do is continually contradict himself to suit his own narrow-minded beliefs.

Why are you unable to show a single contradiction?

He recently claimed some expertise

Where?
Provide the quote where I am claiming expertise.

As a reminder, the person who actually claimed to be an expert is YOU.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 02:49:32 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 07, 2024, 02:43:59 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

Tiemeup isn't saying we should blindly accept all experts without thinking.

Yes, he is.
That is why he fled from the simple question about putting hands in a fire.
Because it shows that his religion is wrong.

If he was not suggesting that, he would have no issue with saying you trust personal experience or think and don't put your hand in the fire.

In a previous thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.0)
they chose to defend the claim:
"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"
And their posts in that thread show them extending that to other areas.

And with wonderful quotes like this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2325435#msg2325435):
"Pray tell me how anyone could learn anything without having access to expert knowledge and the fruits of that knowledge"

And likewise in other threads, where they just entirely ignore arguments and instead provide other claims ("from experts") which in no way address the argument, to suggest the person is wrong.

That is not "erring on the side of an expert". That is just accepting what the expert says without thinking.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

But, it depends what the topic is, doesn't it? If we are talking vaccinations, things can get murky.

Yes, very murky. Especially given "experts" said that vaccines cause autism.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2024, 10:18:54 PM

If we are talking the shape of the Earth where all academics are unanimous Earth is a sphere, is it not safer to err on the side of experts as opposed to video game player extraordinaire, Mork Sargent, who looks like he's had plastic surgery to look like a deer permanently caught in the headlights?

And when FEers like claiming there is a conspiracy, and someone claims to have something which shows a problem, is it better to explain what is wrong with their alleged problem; or is it better to just appeal to experts saying Earth is round?

Come on Jack put your money where your mouth is and show how YOU would prove the shape of the earth by you very own novel and new method untouched by any expert assistance! You claimed to have one but refused to reveal it. I call you both a liar and a fraud.

You could always prove me wrong by revealing your secret method........but of course you won't as none exists.

What a stupid question.

He cant unknow something he already knows.




Heres a better question - who discovered calculus?

Retorts the expert on stupid. When it comes to stupid you have no equal.

When you have something semi-sensible to add I will respond.

Looks like sad Jack has called out his goon squad.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 23, 2024, 02:28:22 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2024, 06:29:15 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 22, 2024, 03:41:44 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 22, 2024, 12:09:55 PM

There are many issues with that.

Wasn’t the point.  The point was for Timeisup to post what “authority” I should go with.

Funny
I asked you the same and you said "radio", "internet chat rooms" and Fox.



Oh the hypocrisy.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.  And you’re just being a complete troll at this point.

Troll?
At this point you shown yourself to be completely bad faithed debater and intentialonally dishonest.
You deserve no respect and yes, will be trolled, because you are a pos.

Suit yourself. While you are at it pass poor Jack a hanky, I think he needs one… and not the one you have been wiping your ass with, or then again as I said , suit yourself.

Ps.
Anyone who needs to call themselves ‘mighty’ sure ain’t.