Why are Experts so feared?

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 mean put my money where YOUR mouth is.

That statement of yours is yet another pathetic lie from your elaborate strawman.
Provide a direct quote (including at least a link to the post) where I claimed such a thing.
If you refuse, then you a liar and a fraud; i.e. the very thing you accuse others of.

Remember, that thread was about the insane claim you chose to defend; that the only way to gain knowledge on the shape of Earth is to accept what an expert says it is.
This was not merely using expert assistance, nor was it saying there is no new method.
Instead it is saying the only possible way to get that knowledge is if someone already knows it and tells you it.

And that is another example of where I provided proof to back up my claim that something is pure BS. I provided it in the form of a logical argument you are yet to even try to refute (at least if I recall correctly. You may have made a pathetic attempt, but you certainly did not refute it).

You can always prove me wrong, by providing a quote where I claimed such a thing; or by explaining how the first person to know the shape of Earth learnt about it when there was no one to tell them, yet they only got that knowledge by reading/listening to what someone who already knew the shape said.

I know, such a thing is an impossibility; but that is the claim you chose to defend.

And your point is?

The exact same as what people in the other thread repeatedly explained to you, which you repeatedly ignored.
That if the only way to obtain knowledge is getting it from an expert, then no one can have that knowledge.

e.g. if the only way to obtain knowledge on calculus is getting that knowledge from an expert, then you need an expert on calculus to be able to get the knowledge to become an expert.
As Newton Leibniz did not have an expert to get the knowledge from, then there is no way for them to get the knowledge and become experts on the topic.
And by logical extension, no one could ever possible be an expert on calculus, so no one could ever possibly know anything about it.

Conversely, if we reject your delusional BS; then it is possible to gain knowledge on calculus without appealing to an expert, which allows people like Newton and Leibniz to get that knowledge without getting it from an existing expert, and then sharing it with imbeciles like you that can't learn anything without spoon feeding it to them.
But it also means it would be possible for someone to do it themselves without getting that knowledge from Newton and Leibniz.

This speaks to a key contrast between religion and science.
With religion, you need to get the knowledge from a prior "expert", with the first "expert" just making shit up.
If you were take a religions and destroy all the knowledge of them, and start again, you would end up with drastically different religions.
But with science, there isn't such a need for experts. Instead it is based upon experiment and observation.
So if you were to take the entire body of scientific knowledge, and destroy it all and start again, we would eventually discover everything we know now. This is precisely because we DON'T need to get that knowledge from an expert.

one thing I can say Jack Black had no hand in it despite any claim he may care to make.

You mean any claims you may care to make and then lie about by pretending I made them.

Again, the one who claimed to be an expert was YOU.

When it comes to stupid you have no equal.

No one could ever take that title from you.

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

You mean when you can twist it into some delusional BS where you can pretend you are right you will respond?

Looks like sad Jack has called out his goon squad.

Or, other people recognise you are spouting delusional BS, and are also calling you out on it.

pass poor Jack a hanky, I think he needs one

Why would I need one?
Because you have demonstrated your dishonesty yet again?
You have been refuted yet again?
You have been called out for your pathetic lies?

Or do you think am I so fragile that your pathetic lies about me would make me cry?
Sorry, not that pathetic.

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

Likewise, if you need to claim you are an expert to try to justify a claim, you most likely aren't.
And if you need to appeal to the claims of an expert (rather than their work and letting that stand for itself), your argument is most likely BS.

It’s really strange but as soon as Jack and his pals find themselves in a corner all pretence of debate goes out the window and the slagging match begins.

If Jack and the others would only try and answer the questions I put to them, as they demand that very thing from the people they grill on this forum. The reality is they can’t without giving the game away which leaves them only one predictable course.

In this thread they make the play of rejecting experts while on other threads they call upon the expertise of those very same experts  along with hard won discoveries to back up their arguments.

They  like to make people think they have made all the discoveries of the knowledge they love to quote where in reality between them they have discovered nothing.

Jack and his pals are happy to invoke their very own ‘they experts’ while at the same time decrying the very same experts as some kind of religion best to be avoided at all costs. Which is it boys?

They present the illusion that they can tell the difference between those experts that can be trusted and those that can’t. How they do this is never explained but it may well be akin to the medieval practice of smelling out witches.

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

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 mean put my money where YOUR mouth is.

That statement of yours is yet another pathetic lie from your elaborate strawman.
Provide a direct quote (including at least a link to the post) where I claimed such a thing.
If you refuse, then you a liar and a fraud; i.e. the very thing you accuse others of.

Remember, that thread was about the insane claim you chose to defend; that the only way to gain knowledge on the shape of Earth is to accept what an expert says it is.
This was not merely using expert assistance, nor was it saying there is no new method.
Instead it is saying the only possible way to get that knowledge is if someone already knows it and tells you it.

And that is another example of where I provided proof to back up my claim that something is pure BS. I provided it in the form of a logical argument you are yet to even try to refute (at least if I recall correctly. You may have made a pathetic attempt, but you certainly did not refute it).

You can always prove me wrong, by providing a quote where I claimed such a thing; or by explaining how the first person to know the shape of Earth learnt about it when there was no one to tell them, yet they only got that knowledge by reading/listening to what someone who already knew the shape said.

I know, such a thing is an impossibility; but that is the claim you chose to defend.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:13:07 PM

And your point is?

The exact same as what people in the other thread repeatedly explained to you, which you repeatedly ignored.
That if the only way to obtain knowledge is getting it from an expert, then no one can have that knowledge.

e.g. if the only way to obtain knowledge on calculus is getting that knowledge from an expert, then you need an expert on calculus to be able to get the knowledge to become an expert.
As Newton Leibniz did not have an expert to get the knowledge from, then there is no way for them to get the knowledge and become experts on the topic.
And by logical extension, no one could ever possible be an expert on calculus, so no one could ever possibly know anything about it.

Conversely, if we reject your delusional BS; then it is possible to gain knowledge on calculus without appealing to an expert, which allows people like Newton and Leibniz to get that knowledge without getting it from an existing expert, and then sharing it with imbeciles like you that can't learn anything without spoon feeding it to them.
But it also means it would be possible for someone to do it themselves without getting that knowledge from Newton and Leibniz.

This speaks to a key contrast between religion and science.
With religion, you need to get the knowledge from a prior "expert", with the first "expert" just making shit up.
If you were take a religions and destroy all the knowledge of them, and start again, you would end up with drastically different religions.
But with science, there isn't such a need for experts. Instead it is based upon experiment and observation.
So if you were to take the entire body of scientific knowledge, and destroy it all and start again, we would eventually discover everything we know now. This is precisely because we DON'T need to get that knowledge from an expert.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:13:07 PM

one thing I can say Jack Black had no hand in it despite any claim he may care to make.

You mean any claims you may care to make and then lie about by pretending I made them.

Again, the one who claimed to be an expert was YOU.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:17:21 PM

When it comes to stupid you have no equal.

No one could ever take that title from you.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:17:21 PM

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

You mean when you can twist it into some delusional BS where you can pretend you are right you will respond?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:17:21 PM

Looks like sad Jack has called out his goon squad.

Or, other people recognise you are spouting delusional BS, and are also calling you out on it.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:20:41 PM

pass poor Jack a hanky, I think he needs one

Why would I need one?
Because you have demonstrated your dishonesty yet again?
You have been refuted yet again?
You have been called out for your pathetic lies?

Or do you think am I so fragile that your pathetic lies about me would make me cry?
Sorry, not that pathetic.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 07, 2024, 12:20:41 PM

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

Likewise, if you need to claim you are an expert to try to justify a claim, you most likely aren't.
And if you need to appeal to the claims of an expert (rather than their work and letting that stand for itself), your argument is most likely BS.

Deflect deflect deflect. Show some proof Jack otherwise admit you are wrong. Just saying I’m wrong means nothing. It’s up to you to prove me wrong, and as we all know that’s something  way beyond you which is why you evade evade evade.

On the subject of the calculus if you know anything of the history you will know, as I do as I’ve read the books produced by experts on the subject! No doubt you rejected those historical experts and held some personal satanic right to access the past….. you will know that both had expert teachers in mathematics. The roots of the calculus was already known as in most things its discovery was incremental relying on the work of previous mathematical experts. If you really want to know the truth of the matter rather than your own hogwash interpretation you should go and consult the historical experts. It’s no secret.

Spin it as you may. The calculus was not some magical discovery made out of nowhere, rather it built on a whole history of mathematical work by a succession  of mathematical experts,

You would like to give the impression that the likes of Newton were born in a vacuum. The truth is he wasn’t he went to University where he was taught by a succession of experts in various fields. That is historical fact, go check it out.
 

It’s really strange but as soon as Jack and his pals find themselves in a corner all pretence of debate goes out the window and the slagging match begins.

And more delusional projection.

You started this with a slagging match, throwing out baseless insults; outright lying about what people say or claim or believe; all because you can't justify your cult.

If Jack and the others would only try and answer the questions I put to them

I answer the questions which are relavent and based upon what I have said.
I am not going to answer questions you are asking your strawmen based upon the claims YOU have invented.
I will leave them for you.

But notice how you are going the very thing you accuse us of?

You act like not answering questions makes people incredibly dishonest, yet you refuse to answer questions directly relating to your claims.

Or as you would say:
"[You] demand that very thing from the people [you] grill on this forum. The reality is [you] can’t without giving the game away which leaves [you] only one predictable course."
You dodge the questions which will expose your BS at all costs, throw out a bunch of insults, and actively lie about what people have said.
You set up elaborate strawmen, nothing like what the people objecting to your BS say, and them demand they answer questions based upon those strawmen.

Grow up.
Stop with the pathetic deflection.
Stop with all the lies.

Answer the questions you keep on avoiding:

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.

Deflect deflect deflect.

Thanks for the nice summary of your post.
As that is what you have done yet again.

Show some proof Jack otherwise admit you are wrong.

Follow your own advice.
Show some proof for all your lies about me. Otherwise, admit you are wrong.

Just saying I’m wrong means nothing.

Good thing I didn't do that. But that does appear to be all you can do.

I provided a logical argument which clearly demonstrated why you are wrong.
Because you cannot refute it, you ignored it.

If you would like the key part of it, here it is from that post you entirely ignored:

e.g. if the only way to obtain knowledge on calculus is getting that knowledge from an expert, then you need an expert on calculus to be able to get the knowledge to become an expert.
As Newton Leibniz did not have an expert to get the knowledge from, then there is no way for them to get the knowledge and become experts on the topic.
And by logical extension, no one could ever possible be an expert on calculus, so no one could ever possibly know anything about it.

Conversely, if we reject your delusional BS; then it is possible to gain knowledge on calculus without appealing to an expert, which allows people like Newton and Leibniz to get that knowledge without getting it from an existing expert, and then sharing it with imbeciles like you that can't learn anything without spoon feeding it to them.
But it also means it would be possible for someone to do it themselves without getting that knowledge from Newton and Leibniz.

It’s up to you to prove me wrong, and as we all know that’s something  way beyond you which is why you evade evade evade.

You mean, as we all know that is something I have done many times, but you can't handle that and you can't prove me wrong which is why you evade evade evade; as you are doing now.
You demand I prove you wrong, and then entirely ignore the post where I prove you wrong.

Also, that isn't actually how the burden of proof works.
You don't get to blatantly lie about me and demand I prove you wrong.
You make a claim about me so YOU need to prove it.

In general, if YOU make a claim, YOU need to prove it.
Other people don't need to prove you wrong.
They can instead just point out your claim is unsubstantiated.
An unsubstantiated claim can be dismissed without needing to prove it is wrong.

So care to stop with the deflection and start trying to justify your lies?

If you would like more proof of your lies, and how you construct strawmen to attack, how about this post of yours:

If we go back I said this in my initial comment:-

"If you only want to deal with rational thought only well deal with this. Like I said if you want to know about the inner workings of the brain something that is beyond your own capabilities you would consult a neurologist who could give your head an MRI scan. They have the knowledge and the equipment. You want to know about the solar system, consult an astronomer. They like the neurologist have all the equipment and knowledge to provide answers to any questions you may have.What is the difference between the two situations and the two sets of experts?  Why would you imagine one set of experts can be trusted and the other set not."

I then said:-
"I think your reply is well off beam and basically wrong. We live in an age where the freedom to find things out has never been greater"

But why did you then say that?
You indicate you are responding to a reply.
Yet that reply isn't included at all.
So just what reply is "well off beam and basically wrong"?
It is as if included that would destroy your claims and show you to be wrong.

But don't worry, people can easily find it.

Quote from: Boydster on July 02, 2021, 08:52:39 AM

Quote from: Brawndo71 on July 02, 2021, 08:25:23 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.

If you follow that logic all the way back, I think you'll find it would prevent anyone from ever finding out what the shape of the Earth is. I mean, at a certain point, you've made it back far enough where there just isn't literature from subject matter experts that you can mindlessly accept. I'm all for observation, evidence, and experiments though - gathered personally and/or from a broad array of others that document not only results but also procedures in such a way that their results could be tested and replicated.

I think your reply is well off beam and basically wrong.

You know you cannot defend the position you chose to (that the ONLY WAY to gain knowledge is by accepting what an expert says) that you had to hide it.
That you posted about what you posted and intentionally left out a massive chunk of context.

You screwed up big time, and likely know you are wrong, but refuse to admit it.

wow
whole lot of stupid was said there...


anywho

let's focus up:

using my expert brain on how bad faithed debaters work, i can surmise the following conversation...

Timsiesis:  explain how someone can tell the earth is round without relying on an expert?
Person who falls for the trap:  by doing the same thing an expert would do.
T:  But you learned that from an expert!
P:  but there's only so many ways a person can tell what a ball looks like.
T:  beacuse you learned that from an expert!
P:  no, because i'm an alive person in the 21st century with the already pre-knowledge of the answer to your question.
T:  So you need an expert!
P:  how can i un-know something i already know, without being called out for know-ing it?
T:  like i said, you neeed an expert, checkmate, kingme, touchdown, i'm the best.  i like to smell my own farts.
P:  cool conversation bro.  glad to be a part of a conversation you had with yourself.




meanwhile in non-crazy town...

the examples posed back to you, you seem to have refused to rebutt/ acknowledge.
did you infact assert "only experts know things"
are absolute statements such as "only experts know things" fundamentally flawed and in fact "people can learn things" is NOT an opposing statement to your flawed statement, but a correction to include a set of un-considered possible outcomes?
is veratasium correct?
can doctors be wrong?
can scientists lie?

If you would like more proof of your lies, and how you construct strawmen to attack, how about this post of yours:

Quote from: Timmy on July 21, 2021, 12:27:32 AM

If we go back I said this in my initial comment:-

"If you only want to deal with rational thought only well deal with this. Like I said if you want to know about the inner workings of the brain something that is beyond your own capabilities you would consult a neurologist who could give your head an MRI scan. They have the knowledge and the equipment. You want to know about the solar system, consult an astronomer. They like the neurologist have all the equipment and knowledge to provide answers to any questions you may have.What is the difference between the two situations and the two sets of experts?  Why would you imagine one set of experts can be trusted and the other set not."

I then said:-
"I think your reply is well off beam and basically wrong. We live in an age where the freedom to find things out has never been greater"

But why did you then say that?
You indicate you are responding to a reply.
Yet that reply isn't included at all.
So just what reply is "well off beam and basically wrong"?
It is as if included that would destroy your claims and show you to be wrong.

But don't worry, people can easily find it.

Quote from: Timmy on July 02, 2021, 12:59:38 PM

Quote from: Boydster on July 02, 2021, 08:52:39 AM

Quote from: Brawndo71 on July 02, 2021, 08:25:23 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.

If you follow that logic all the way back, I think you'll find it would prevent anyone from ever finding out what the shape of the Earth is. I mean, at a certain point, you've made it back far enough where there just isn't literature from subject matter experts that you can mindlessly accept. I'm all for observation, evidence, and experiments though - gathered personally and/or from a broad array of others that document not only results but also procedures in such a way that their results could be tested and replicated.

I think your reply is well off beam and basically wrong.

You know you cannot defend the position you chose to (that the ONLY WAY to gain knowledge is by accepting what an expert says) that you had to hide it.
That you posted about what you posted and intentionally left out a massive chunk of context.

You screwed up big time, and likely know you are wrong, but refuse to admit it.

How about you answer some questions that were put to you, that’s the ones you continue to avoid answering. Its pretty rich from you, what with you the one who demands answers from everyone. Your demands for answers are there for all to read. You providing them is quite a different story.

You demonstrate that you know nothing about the theory and workings of pedagogy and how it allows  the passing on of expertise from one generation to the next with each laying down another fresh layer of knowledge atop of that which previously existed which in turn allows for the creation of future experts. All things you know nothing of.

The way you scorn and despise expertise at one moment then call upon it when it suits you clearly demonstrates your inability to be honest and consistent.

wow
whole lot of stupid was said there...


anywho

let's focus up:

using my expert brain on how bad faithed debaters work, i can surmise the following conversation...

Timsiesis:  explain how someone can tell the earth is round without relying on an expert?
Person who falls for the trap:  by doing the same thing an expert would do.
T:  But you learned that from an expert!
P:  but there's only so many ways a person can tell what a ball looks like.
T:  beacuse you learned that from an expert!
P:  no, because i'm an alive person in the 21st century with the already pre-knowledge of the answer to your question.
T:  So you need an expert!
P:  how can i un-know something i already know, without being called out for know-ing it?
T:  like i said, you neeed an expert, checkmate, kingme, touchdown, i'm the best.  i like to smell my own farts.
P:  cool conversation bro.  glad to be a part of a conversation you had with yourself.




meanwhile in non-crazy town...

the examples posed back to you, you seem to have refused to rebutt/ acknowledge.
did you infact assert "only experts know things"
are absolute statements such as "only experts know things" fundamentally flawed and in fact "people can learn things" is NOT an opposing statement to your flawed statement, but a correction to include a set of un-considered possible outcomes?
is veratasium correct?
can doctors be wrong?
can scientists lie?

Can you be wrong can you lie?

Mr mcdodgeface drives his dodgeram to the dodge store to pick up some more dodgefood for his dodggee, dodger, who is a dodgermann pinscher.

Mr mcdodgeface drives his dodgeram to the dodge store to pick up some more dodgefood for his dodggee, dodger, who is a dodgermann pinscher.

Having said that how would you yourself independently confirm the share of the planet through no more than independent personal experience and without resorting to any external expert assistance.

You could enlist the help of dog or other pet, that would be allowable as they can be considered non-experts.

How about you answer some questions that were put to you

Again, I already did.
The ones I refuse to are those which are based purely upon your strawman.
You can have your strawmen (i.e. YOU) answer them.

How about you stop with the childish deflections, and try answer the questions you continue to avoid answering.

Its pretty rich from you, what with you the one who demands answers from everyone. Your demands for answers are there for all to read.

As are my answers.
You just choose to ignore them because you don't like them.
You literally ask questions, only to outright ignore the answer.

Conversely, from you we see plenty of demands for questions. Especially after strawmanning people. But no answers.

So how about YOU answer some questions that were put to YOU?
Questions based upon what YOU have said?

Like these:

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?

How do you tell if someone is actually an expert, vs just pretending?

You demonstrate that you know nothing

And now you just resort to the same pathetic lies, where you baselessly assert pure BS, with no justification at all.
I get, you hate being wrong. But doing this just shows how pathetic and desperate you are to pretend to be right.

demonstrates your inability to be honest and consistent.

Given how you repeatedly lie about what people have said, making up what they have said to attack that; I would not suggest you say any other than yourself has an inability to be honeset.

As for consistent, as the above example demonstrated, you needed to entirely hide what you were trying to defend because you knew it was a lost cause and that you had no chance. So you be entirely inconsistent with a bait and switch.

Now again, stop with the pathetic BS and answer the questions:

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?

How do you tell if someone is actually an expert, vs just pretending?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 07, 2024, 03:28:59 PM

Mr mcdodgeface drives his dodgeram to the dodge store to pick up some more dodgefood for his dodggee, dodger, who is a dodgermann pinscher.

Having said that how would you yourself independently confirm the share of the planet through no more than independent personal experience and without resorting to any external expert assistance.

You could enlist the help of dog or other pet, that would be allowable as they can be considered non-experts.

...

Are you


Asking me


How i would determine the shape


Of the planet


After unknowing the things



I already know?

















Is that your question?




Amazing!

wow
whole lot of stupid was said there...


anywho

let's focus up:

using my expert brain on how bad faithed debaters work, i can surmise the following conversation...

Timsiesis:  explain how someone can tell the earth is round without relying on an expert?
Person who falls for the trap:  by doing the same thing an expert would do.
T:  But you learned that from an expert!
P:  but there's only so many ways a person can tell what a ball looks like.
T:  beacuse you learned that from an expert!
P:  no, because i'm an alive person in the 21st century with the already pre-knowledge of the answer to your question.
T:  So you need an expert!
P:  how can i un-know something i already know, without being called out for know-ing it?
T:  like i said, you neeed an expert, checkmate, kingme, touchdown, i'm the best.  i like to smell my own farts.
P:  cool conversation bro.  glad to be a part of a conversation you had with yourself.




meanwhile in non-crazy town...

the examples posed back to you, you seem to have refused to rebutt/ acknowledge.
did you infact assert "only experts know things"
are absolute statements such as "only experts know things" fundamentally flawed and in fact "people can learn things" is NOT an opposing statement to your flawed statement, but a correction to include a set of un-considered possible outcomes?
is veratasium correct?
can doctors be wrong?
can scientists lie?

You were heading in the right direction then crashed.

Of course experts don’t know everything. How could they? That a really stupid and crass thing to say!

The point is an expert in any particular field knows a hell of a lot more than you! Or even Jack. That’s what an expert is and why flat earthers and Jack hate them so, and why they have to demean them and accuse them of lying.

 In among that they slip in the red herring as you did… experts don’t know everything and they are not always right!

The problem here is it’s not that experts are not always right and don’t know everything it’s people like Jack Black and others who use that to claim some alternative unfounded expertise built on fluff and guff which they then base everything they say on…… and then go on to claim or give the impression they do know everything!

Jack for example claims to have expertise on planets like Saturn that he is using to argue the toss with Turbo, who also claims expertise on Saturn. The truth is all they actually know is no better than hand me down bits and pieces combined with a made up mish mash.

Jacks mantra of knowledge through personal experience falls kinda flat here! The only way he could know anything about Saturn would be from information that was discovered by experts in that field. Turbo on the other hand rejects all expert knowledge favouring guff to be found on YouTube!

Each pretend in their own way they  that they have expertise in a field that in reality they both know less than half of bugger all about. It’s akin to the blind arguing with the blind over the aesthetic merits of a work of art. Neither have actually seen it but they both delude themselves into believing they have while at the same time rejecting what had been said by an expert with 20-20 vision, who they both claim needs glasses and is not looking at the art in the right way!

That’s the truth of it. As for Jack claiming he has his very own home spun  novel method for proving the shape of the planet …….where is it?

Of course you think every other object seen on videos, like the moon, or anything on Earth, which shows the same thing or nearly so of them, is good enough to be considered proof of what they look like, or proof that they are really in motion, when all the videos show it in motion, except for one object seen in all the videos in motion, if it’s Saturn seen in motion, because all the videos of it, are not good enough to be considered proof of anything, of motion?

Of course experts don’t know everything. How could they? That a really stupid and crass thing to say!

Yet no one said that in the post you are responding to.
So yes, it is a very stupid thing for YOU to say.

But the point is, they do not know everything which means they can be wrong; and they had to learn that knowledge somehow and typically will have learnt things not from just accepting what experts say, and even then, if you trace the line of experts back far enough, you reach a point where there is no expert to learn it from.

The problem here is it’s not that experts are not always right and don’t know everything

That is one of the key faults with your BS.
But not actually the fault with your delusional BS from that thread.

If your argument boils down to "Expert says you are wrong", then your argument is crap.
Let the expert come and actually explain why the argument is wrong.

it’s people like Jack Black and others who use that to claim some alternative unfounded expertise

Stop with the dishonest BS.
Provide a direct quote.

Jack for example claims

Again, stop with the blatant lies.

Provide a direct quote.

Once again you are resorting to blatantly lying about people to set up a strawman to attack.

The only way he could know anything about Saturn would be from information that was discovered by experts in that field.

So you are saying all those "experts" that gained knowledge of Saturn by looking through telescopes are actually lying and just got that knowledge from an expert in that field?

If so, what expert did they get it from, and how did that expert get it?
Is that expert actually an alien with a space ship?
Maybe one that grew up on Saturn?

Or do you recognise that you can gain knowledge of Saturn through personal experience such as by viewing it through a telescope?

Each pretend in their own way they  that they have expertise

Again, stop with the lies.
Provide a quote.

As for Jack claiming

Again, stop with the lies.
Provide a quote.

Of course you think every other object seen on videos, like the moon, or anything on Earth, which shows the same thing or nearly so of them

Including showing the kind of distortions you see on Saturn which you wish to pretend is just distortion for things like the moon, but is magically the motion of Saturn.
But this is not the thread for that BS of yours.

Of course you think every other object seen on videos, like the moon, or anything on Earth, which shows the same thing or nearly so of them, is good enough to be considered proof of what they look like, or proof that they are really in motion, when all the videos show it in motion, except for one object seen in all the videos in motion, if it’s Saturn seen in motion, because all the videos of it, are not good enough to be considered proof of anything, of motion?

How does Jupiter compare to Saturn in your "in motion" stakes? Just as blurry? Just as in motion as you put it? What about the planet Mars? Is Mars in less motion? What about your favourite planet - Uranus? How does it's "in motion" compare to Saturn?

You want to argue with the big boys, so what have you got to say for yourself? This isn't the flat earth knights of the round table, this is real questions being posed to you from the real world.

If I ever met you in person and discovered you actually believed the ridiculously stupid shit you post, I would easily be able to ease you out of your radicalisation. Here, I'm hampered by being on a forum.

Of course you think every other object seen on videos, like the moon, or anything on Earth, which shows the same thing or nearly so of them, is good enough to be considered proof of what they look like, or proof that they are really in motion, when all the videos show it in motion, except for one object seen in all the videos in motion, if it’s Saturn seen in motion, because all the videos of it, are not good enough to be considered proof of anything, of motion?

The issue here is you have convinced yourself of a particular set of beliefs that are founded on YouTube videos that totally misrepresent reality. These shakey images of Saturn around which you have constructed your beliefs are easy to explain away plus there are a multitude of other images that show the true nature of Saturn that you have chosen to reject.
The other more glaring aspect of this is you have chosen to reject all of modern day astronomy along with all it has discovered in favour of some dubious YouTube video. The question you need to address is why?
What is the likelihood that All professional astronomers are wrong while you who had had no formal astronomy training are right? That fact alone should at least cause you some doubt.

The irony of this discussion is the fact that all the validated and accepted knowledge that anyone on this forum possesses has come about through a whole series of discoveries by  numerous experts over the years in wide variety of disciplines. These days the discovery of new validated knowledge seldom comes about through the efforts of lone individuals. All new knowledge  acquired comes mainly from the efforts of teams of experts and not from the personal experience of individuals like Jack Black despite his claims to the contrary.
It’s due to that very fact that people fear then reject experts. This  then allows them to create their own alternate evidence free neu-knowledge based on no more than belief supported by a conspiracy. This rejection of experts and expert knowledge is a prerequisite of flat earth belief. One cannot believe in the flat earth without first rejecting expert knowledge, by claiming for example, that all of  astronomy has been faked! Others like Jack Black take a different tack claiming  all his knowledge comes from personal experience. He diminishes main stream science by claiming it is akin to some form of dogma driven religion. He then elevates himself by claiming his knowledge is some how sourced via his own efforts. How he is able to gain knowledge of the cosmos or the world of the sub atomic through his method of personal experience he never quite explains.
Of course this rejection of experts is highly selective. They happily accept the work of experts by  using  their computers and mobile phones along with all the other expert produced infrastructure they enjoy. It’s far easier to reject astronomy than it is computer science!

Youre changing the arguments and the goalposts.
How dishonest


I articulated your Set.
You can refute it.
But you havent.


But instead propose that jack and i are claiming a complete opposite and nonexistent Set


Focus up.

To answer my own question that started this discussion :-

Why are experts so feared?

Reason 1:-
Experts are feared by those who want to promote alternative neu-views based on belief rather than validated knowledge. Experts, due to the world they operate in are invariably in a better position to provide a more accurate and truthful answer. Why?. The knowledge they provide has to go through a series of checks to ensure its validity. This normally happens over time with the checks being performed by a large number of people in a variety of locations. This helps to ensure a solid consensus for the knowledge. In the world of science this is an ongoing process where knowledge is constantly being refined and updated as new methods and technologies come on stream.

Belief driven neu-think has no such mechanism for refinement. Those who reject expert knowledge have a belief that they stick to regardless of any evidence old or new that proves them wrong.

Flat earth belief is unchanging as they have no method for knowledge generation as they have no need of it. All they can do is modify what they believe. One day the flat earth with an ice wall and a dome suddenly becomes an infinite flat earth. This comes about not through any new knowledge discovery but through belief modification. For flat earth belief no knowledge is required. There is no data to support any of their beliefs, it’s an impossibility just as the idea of a flat earth map is an impossibility. A simple satellite image destroys all their beliefs in one fell swoop hence their desperate need for a conspiracy along with the need to reject all expert knowledge on any subject that shows their beliefs to be nonsense.

Reason 2:-
People such as Jack Black who appear to ‘earn his living’ through arguments with flat earth believers is compelled to grant flat earth belief some validity to both bolster and validate his own stance. Hence his need to grant their belief with the possibility of being able to generate ‘flat earth scientific models’ he can spend his time pulling apart thus demonstrating his own intellectual superiority. Jack Black needs flat earth belief to have some remote possibility of being true, hence his own need to cast doubt on experts. The irony here is that Jack Black needs those experts to provide him with the knowledge that he uses in his arguments against flat earth belief! He covers himself with spinning a fiction that he gains all his knowledge through personal experience, hence providing an illusion, that like flat earthers, he has no need for experts as he is his very own expert.

Jack Black therefore has a need of his own to discredit expert knowledge by constantly calling it a religion that is blindly followed by the masses, which is the very same view put forward by flat earth believers. Jack Black and flat earth believers both promote this view for the same reason driven by different motives. His motive is an effort to hand some fictional validity to flat earth belief to justify the time he spends arguing with them over meaningless  and pointless topics. A weird symbiotic relationship where Jack Black thrives and feeds off flat earth belief. He needs flat earth belief to justify his existence.

Fearing and rejecting experts and their knowledge is an attempt by various individuals to generate an alternative  knowledge free neu-environment where they can inflate their own egos in a world free from any constraints that the real world  may impose. Fools in a fools paradise.

Youre changing the arguments and the goalposts.
How dishonest


I articulated your Set.
You can refute it.
But you havent.


But instead propose that jack and i are claiming a complete opposite and nonexistent Set


Focus up.

I’ve changed nothing… look at the original question, that I’ve now answered.

People fear experts for different reasons. Ultimately the fear is driven by the idea that any knowledge discovered may undermine their own illusionary beliefs or position they have adopted.

Flat earth belief and parasitic behaviour such as Jack Black’s both need for their own reasons to discredit experts.

In this I’ve been consistent in pointing out.

What your own stance is on this I’m not sure as you appear to jump about like a demonic flea.

I notice how you yet again flee.

After spouting mountains of dishonest BS, you just act like that post never existed.

The irony of this discussion is the fact that all the validated and accepted knowledge that anyone on this forum possesses has come about through a whole series of discoveries by  numerous experts over the years in wide variety of disciplines.

Really? Is that the only way everyone has ever gotten it?
You have never been burnt?

Or are you just saying that experts have also found the knowledge?

despite his claims to the contrary.

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Jack Black take a different tack claiming

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

He diminishes main stream science by claiming it is akin to some form of dogma driven religion.

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

I point out your cult is a cult.
What you are advocating for is NOT mainstream science.
It is a cult.

He then elevates himself by claiming

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

How he is able to gain knowledge of the cosmos or the world of the sub atomic through his method of personal experience he never quite explains.

How do you know the moon is made of cheese?
Your question is just as honest as that.

Of course this rejection of experts is highly selective.

As if experts are fallible human beings, and if you find something wrong with what an expert says it doesn't mean all experts are wrong about everything, nor does it even mean that 1 expert is wrong about everything.

e.g. When the "crazy crackpot" Einstein decided that Newton was wrong about gravity and relativity, did he say he was wrong about everything? That everything based upon Newton is wrong?

Why are experts so feared?

Because they don't agree with your pathetic cult, so you fear them.

You also have no basis that they are actually feared by anyone.
Instead you just claim they are.

People such as Jack Black who appear

Lying about me wont help you.

Your position has now reached a point where you are claiming people are shilling for the FE.

Have you secretly been a flat Earther this whole time, trying to pretend REers are a bunch of complete imbeciles in a cult of "science" that just accept what they are told and pay to argue?

Because other than being paid to argue, you are doing a great job of making yourself look like that.

And pointing out experts are fallible is NOT discrediting them.
Saying you should try responding to an argument by pointing out the errors in the argument, rather than basically going "EARTH IS ROUND! YOU DUMB" is not discrediting experts.

I’ve changed nothing… look at the original question, that I’ve now answered.

Again, this started way back in the other thread, where you stupidly decided to defend the pure BS claim that the only way to know the shape of Earth is to blindly accept what someone says it is.

That is what you have then repeatedly fled from. Continually changing the goalposts and lying about what people have claimed in order to pretend you aren't wrong.

If you don't want to change the goalposts, then go back to that original claim, and try defending it, or admit it is wrong and you were wrong to defend it.

And in doing so, STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID OR DONE!
If you want to claim someone claimed something, provide a direct quote.

Life cant be this difficult.

If you decide to make an all encompassing claim such as "experts are required to know anything".

Then such an all encompassing claim must be all encompassing.

If you have been shown dozens and dozens of examples where your Set law doesnt fall in line (when only one is needed in a mathmatetical de-proof) then why the fuck does your stubborn brain dig its heels in?

Sounds very - denpressure - of you to do so.

I notice how you yet again flee.

After spouting mountains of dishonest BS, you just act like that post never existed.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

The irony of this discussion is the fact that all the validated and accepted knowledge that anyone on this forum possesses has come about through a whole series of discoveries by  numerous experts over the years in wide variety of disciplines.

Really? Is that the only way everyone has ever gotten it?
You have never been burnt?

Or are you just saying that experts have also found the knowledge?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

despite his claims to the contrary.

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

Jack Black take a different tack claiming

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

He diminishes main stream science by claiming it is akin to some form of dogma driven religion.

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

I point out your cult is a cult.
What you are advocating for is NOT mainstream science.
It is a cult.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

He then elevates himself by claiming

Again, STOP WITH THE LIES!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

How he is able to gain knowledge of the cosmos or the world of the sub atomic through his method of personal experience he never quite explains.

How do you know the moon is made of cheese?
Your question is just as honest as that.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 02:11:24 PM

Of course this rejection of experts is highly selective.

As if experts are fallible human beings, and if you find something wrong with what an expert says it doesn't mean all experts are wrong about everything, nor does it even mean that 1 expert is wrong about everything.

e.g. When the "crazy crackpot" Einstein decided that Newton was wrong about gravity and relativity, did he say he was wrong about everything? That everything based upon Newton is wrong?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 11:49:01 PM

Why are experts so feared?

Because they don't agree with your pathetic cult, so you fear them.

You also have no basis that they are actually feared by anyone.
Instead you just claim they are.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 19, 2024, 11:49:01 PM

People such as Jack Black who appear

Lying about me wont help you.

Your position has now reached a point where you are claiming people are shilling for the FE.

Have you secretly been a flat Earther this whole time, trying to pretend REers are a bunch of complete imbeciles in a cult of "science" that just accept what they are told and pay to argue?

Because other than being paid to argue, you are doing a great job of making yourself look like that.

And pointing out experts are fallible is NOT discrediting them.
Saying you should try responding to an argument by pointing out the errors in the argument, rather than basically going "EARTH IS ROUND! YOU DUMB" is not discrediting experts.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 12:03:25 AM

I’ve changed nothing… look at the original question, that I’ve now answered.

Again, this started way back in the other thread, where you stupidly decided to defend the pure BS claim that the only way to know the shape of Earth is to blindly accept what someone says it is.

That is what you have then repeatedly fled from. Continually changing the goalposts and lying about what people have claimed in order to pretend you aren't wrong.

If you don't want to change the goalposts, then go back to that original claim, and try defending it, or admit it is wrong and you were wrong to defend it.

And in doing so, STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID OR DONE!
If you want to claim someone claimed something, provide a direct quote.

Flee!!
Unlike you Jack I have a life that is not dependant on a diet of flat earth ego inflation, hence my sporadic visits.

The problem with you Jack is you just keep repeating the same baloney now as you did several years ago. Nothing changes.

You call people liars when you have no comeback.

You never answer legitimate questions that are put to you.

While you call people liars you constantly tell lie after lie yourself. Here is one of your classic repeat lies:-

"I point out your cult is a cult.
What you are advocating for is NOT mainstream science.
It is a cult."

What cult are you on about? It's no more than one of your own self generated myths to somehow diminish main stream expert generated knowledge. The only cult around here is your very own cult of self where you are your very own deity.

You constantly talk nonsense. This for example:-

"How do you know the moon is made of cheese?"

Like you Ive never been to the Moon but those that have say the Moon is covered by a rubble pile of charcoal-gray, powdery dust and rocky debris called the lunar regolith. What does your personal experience say it's made of Jack? Bullshit perhaps!

You say:-
"You also have no basis that they are actually feared by anyone.
Instead you just claim they are."

You like all flat earth believers  fear experts. You in particular see them as a threat to your own self proclaimed omnipotence. You have constantly argued against experts calling belief in the knowledge they produce as akin to belief in a cult.

For example you say this:-

" trying to pretend REers are a bunch of complete imbeciles in a cult of "science" that just accept what they are told and pay to argue?"

Make your mind up Jack? What do you believe? You say one thing then go on to contradict yourself with the next thing you say.

The scientific consensus is the scientific consensus derived through years and years of validation by a variety of different experts. I tend to go along with the scientific consensus unlike you who pretends what they believe has somehow all been personally vetted by yourself.  What you say about the Moon Jack? Cult what cult.

Going back to your tendency to distort and tell lies here is an example:-

You said:-

"Again, this started way back in the other thread, where you stupidly decided to defend the pure BS claim that the only way to know the shape of Earth is to blindly accept what someone says it is."

I said the only way to know the shape of the earth is to consult expert sources. No where did I use the word blindly. Thats your lie, your distortion. You say it's BS but not once after countless challenges have YOU offered a method free from any expert help. On that you constantly failed.

You constantly ask people for proof but when its the other way around and you yourself are ask to prove a statement you run a mile.

You say:-

"And in doing so, STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID OR DONE!
If you want to claim someone claimed something, provide a direct quote."

I have provided direct quotes and also pointed out your very own lies and distortions.

You say:-

"And pointing out experts are fallible is NOT discrediting them."

I would agree with that only under certain circumstances. When it comes to the shape of the earth or any other validated piece of mature and known knowledge casting doubt on expert knowledge is no more than a demonstration of crass ignorance.  A bit like your ignorant stand on flat earth belief being able to produce scientific models. Yet another argument that you crashed and burned on.  If anyone around here is a closet flat earther it is you Jack. After all you support the notion that flat earth belief is capable of generating scientific models, I on the other hand don't.

Again I challenge you to back up your position and describe how you yourself would provide proof of the shape of the earth without relying on expert assistance.

I also challenge you to list all the flat earth beliefs that are based on proven science.

On you go Jack.

Life cant be this difficult.

If you decide to make an all encompassing claim such as "experts are required to know anything".

Then such an all encompassing claim must be all encompassing.

If you have been shown dozens and dozens of examples where your Set law doesnt fall in line (when only one is needed in a mathmatetical de-proof) then why the fuck does your stubborn brain dig its heels in?

Sounds very - denpressure - of you to do so.

IT depends what you mean by anything. A question that relates to the colour of your underwear  I would agree does not require expert help.

When it comes to scientific knowledge you would be hard pressed to discover anything without recourse to expert assistance. Remember Bob and how both you and Jack failed to answer the question.

The problem is there is precious little You could discover without enlisting the help of experts.

You say this:-

"you have been shown dozens and dozens of examples where your Set law doesn't fall in line (when only one is needed in a mathmatetical de-proof) then why the fuck does your stubborn brain dig its heels in?"

I don't think so!

I have seen dozens and dozens of examples? Where ? All Ive ever asked for is one relevant example and both yourself and Jack have failed to provide one. All you have ever done is put down some two bit bullshit pseudo logic and pretended it proved your point, when in reality you have proved nothing other than being wrong.

Just give a good clear example.

To be clear.

Provide me one example where you can discover something of scientific relevance without the use of outside expert assistance or prior expert knowledge. You have to make this discovery all on your own from scratch. Claiming fire is hot is not a valid answer. Take note Jack.

It excludes things such discovering water is wet, wood floats, metal sinks and things fall if you let them go are all excluded for obvious reasons.

As you said you have provided dozens and dozens of examples before just provide one of them and we will see.

No goalposts have been moved. Expert help and assistance is as it says expert help and assistance. Any knowledge used that was not of your own discovery will be deemed as expert assistance.

Problem.

I tend to acquire what scientific knowledge from the pages of New Scientist and various books Ive read on the subject.

Jack Black calls all what I believe evidence of being a member of a cult. He said:-

"I point out your cult is a cult.
What you are advocating for is NOT mainstream science.
It is a cult."

He has decided with no evidence to proclaim my version of science which I consider to be mainstream is a cult. How so Jack?

I ask Jack Black what proof does he have.

I also ask him on what basis does he differentiate my knowledge form his own and come to the conclusion my beliefs are cult based.

What does he define as 'blindly accepting' as he tend to use that phrase a lot, therefore he must have some idea what it means.

Why is his own belief in the things he believes in not just an example of blind acceptance? What does he do to avoid blind acceptance?

Why does he consider himself to be free from blindly accepting things?

How does he vet and validate what little knowledge he has?

Over to you Jack....

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2024, 04:27:28 AM

Life cant be this difficult.

If you decide to make an all encompassing claim such as "experts are required to know anything".

Then such an all encompassing claim must be all encompassing.

If you have been shown dozens and dozens of examples where your Set law doesnt fall in line (when only one is needed in a mathmatetical de-proof) then why the fuck does your stubborn brain dig its heels in?

Sounds very - denpressure - of you to do so.

IT depends what you mean by anything. A question that relates to the colour of your underwear  I would agree does not require expert help.

When it comes to scientific knowledge you would be hard pressed to discover anything without recourse to expert assistance. Remember Bob and how both you and Jack failed to answer the question.

The problem is there is precious little You could discover without enlisting the help of experts.

You say this:-

"you have been shown dozens and dozens of examples where your Set law doesn't fall in line (when only one is needed in a mathmatetical de-proof) then why the fuck does your stubborn brain dig its heels in?"

I don't think so!

I have seen dozens and dozens of examples? Where ? All Ive ever asked for is one relevant example and both yourself and Jack have failed to provide one. All you have ever done is put down some two bit bullshit pseudo logic and pretended it proved your point, when in reality you have proved nothing other than being wrong.

Just give a good clear example.

Youve been gicen many.
Youve ignored them.
Keep on being just like sceppy and turbo.

Data the Spazz even gave you a bynch at the beinging of THIS thread and you waved it away.
"Floss dossnt count"
Imsure in the OTHER threads wherebthis SAME question was attempted youll find my examplenof bias, human error, and financial/external influence.


Do such examples exist or not?


Keep on spazzing.

To be clear.

Provide me one example where you can discover something of scientific relevance without the use of outside expert assistance or prior expert knowledge. You have to make this discovery all on your own from scratch. Claiming fire is hot is not a valid answer. Take note Jack.

It excludes things such discovering water is wet, wood floats, metal sinks and things fall if you let them go are all excluded for obvious reasons.

As you said you have provided dozens and dozens of examples before just provide one of them and we will see.

No goalposts have been moved. Expert help and assistance is as it says expert help and assistance. Any knowledge used that was not of your own discovery will be deemed as expert assistance.

Your goalposts have shifted and now reuqires erradication of all modern science.

Re-discovery of old things happen when any kid goes outside.

Your absurd requirement now is that you have the luxury of claiming some person 200y ago discovered it first.
Being first doesnt mean it cant be discovered new.
Just like finding a good restauratn, hiking trail, water level goes up when i drop in the tub.







But

Your question has changed.
I can accept the new question has changed from the old posit.
But you dont.

Applying jacks statement to your previously bad and wrong statment, then changing the goal posts, you can not then apply jacks old statement to your newly created position.
You purposefully changed your psotion so jack is wrong, when jack wasnt even critiquing this current position!


That is a strawman.
Thwt is dishoenst.