Why are Experts so feared?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 04:42:34 AM

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.

You said:-

“Youve been gicen many.
Youve ignored them.”


In your most delusional dreams possibly, in reality a resounding No.

It such an easy cop out to say you’ve been given tons of examples when in reality none have been presented.

 

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 04:54:34 AM

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.

Ate you for real? Do you not understand simple concepts?

You are fooling yourself into imagining you know anything that has not been provided by experts.
The whole education system is built on it from junior school right up to undergraduate level.

Everything we are taught is knowledge created/ discovered by some expert(s) or other. Possibly the only time that any original thought is  actually done is during post grad study and even then it’s all  been built on a foundation of expert produced previous knowledge. Truly original thinking is extreme rare.

Name one original thought you have had? Name one piece of original work you have ever done that has not been made possible by a foundation of previously learnt expert knowledge.

To think otherwise is just monumental delusion on your part.

You really, like  Jack, have some over inflated opinion of yourself.

i do understand simple concepts.
that is why it is not monumental to think i could understand simple concepts if my brain were wiped and i were on a desert island, DEPSITE it being previously discovered because recorded history has existed beyond 2,000yrs.

which is the fatal flaw in your "everything requires experts".

because not everything requires experts.




and that's the point.
that's the only point.
in no way did i say i could self discover calculus.
in no way did i say i could self discover electricity.
in no way did i say i could self discover the DNA structure.
in no way did i say NOTHING requires an expert.

the only thing said, let me say very slowly for your dumb brain to understand, is that...



your all or nothing




statement




is absurd




because




it requires too strict





a







rule to be appplied






to





everything.

Flee!!

Yes, as you have done yet again.
Notice how you don't provide any quotes to justify your lies?
Notice how you still haven't addressed the simple questions that show you are wrong.

You call people liars when you have no comeback.

No, I call them liars when they repeatedly demonstrate they lie.

You never answer legitimate questions that are put to you.

I answer them all the time.
What I don't answer are illegitimate questions put to me based upon a blatant misrepresentation of what I have said.

What cult are you on about?

Your pathetic cult of blindly accepting whatever an expert says without thinking.
Your pathetic cult where the only possible to get knowledge is to blindly accept what an expert says.
Your pathetic cult, which if established long ago would have rejected the works of Einstein and Newton as going against orthodoxy.

You constantly talk nonsense. This for example:-
"How do you know the moon is made of cheese?"

Yes, a simple demonstration of your dishonest BS.

You keep asking stupid questions which are based upon blatantly lying about me.
That is no better than the question I presented.

Yes, you have never indicated you have been to the moon or the moon is made of cheese.
But likewise I have never indicated the mountains of BS you spout about me.

So either answer the question and tell me how you know the moon is made of cheese; or recognise the dishonest

You like all flat earth believers  fear experts.

PROVE IT!!

Stop just asserting BS to construct your elaborate strawmen, and PROVE IT!

Because right now, the one acting like a FEer is YOU!

You continually lie about what others say, you make up shit and pretend it must be true, you dodge questions which show your claims are pure BS.
And now you have ever resorted to acting like REers here are paid shills.

your own self proclaimed

STOP LYING!!!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Do you understand those basic instructions?

Stop with the blatant lies about me.
Each time you make them you just further demonstrate how dishonest, desperate and pathetic you are.
If you were honest you would either stop with these BS claims entirely, or provide a quote.

You have constantly argued against experts calling belief in the knowledge they produce as akin to belief in a cult.

No, I haven't.
Instead I have made it clear that what you are promoting is a cult.
You are not promoting science.

For example you say this:-

Yes, in direct response to what you have said and done.

e.g. in the thread on gyroscopes, do you make any attempt to refute the argument?
No. Instead you basically just say Earth is round.

That is no better than a religious person just boldly proclaiming there god is good while entirely ignoring an argument that shows it is evil.

That is cult like behaviour. Where you just regurgitate what your preachers have told you without even attempting to deal with the argument.

It would be like going to Newton and telling him he is wrong, because they experts say the natural state of things is at rest, not in uniform motion.
Telling Einstein that he is wrong for suggesting like can be both a wave and a particle, telling him he is wrong for suggesting a wave can propagate without a medium.

And so on.

What you are advocating for is a cult.
You are not advocating for science.

Again, a key difference between your cult and science, is that you demand blind acceptance of anything your preachers/prophets say.
In science, EVERYTHING is open for questioning, including the statements of experts; and when something appears that appears to contradict established knowledge, you investigate and see if it actually does, or if there is a mistake somewhere, you don't just dismiss it as wrong.

you who pretends

STOP LYING!!!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Do you understand those basic instructions?

Stop with the blatant lies about me.
Each time you make them you just further demonstrate how dishonest, desperate and pathetic you are.
If you were honest you would either stop with these BS claims entirely, or provide a quote.

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.

And straight back to the lies.

Again, here are the exact words you chose to defend (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2324951#msg2324951):
"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."

Yet even your claim now is blatant misrepresentation of that statement.
You have yet again tried to move the goalposts.

You are trying to replace "what the subject matter experts say the Earth is" with "consulting expert sources" and "getting expert assistance".

Do you understand the difference?
To refute the statement you chose to defend, you can get loads of expert assistance to assist with designing and carrying out an experiment to determine what the shape of Earth is.
As long as they don't directly tell you Earth is round, the statement is false.
But with your delusional BS, if an expert so much as tells you 1+1=2, that is then magically discounted.

But because there is no way to defend the BS you chose to, you instead immediately resort to strawmen. Trying to demand I provide a method free from expert assistance.
But that wasn't what was claimed.
You set up a strawman and demanded I defend it.
I am under no obligation to defend your strawmen.
If you want it defended then YOU defend it.

Otherwise, defend what you actually chose to support.

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.

The fundamental distinction is that I am asking people to prove things they have claimed.
Conversely you are demanding I prove things for your strawman, not based upon what I have said.

My request is honest. Yours is dishonest BS because you can't defend your BS.

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

You provided quotes which failed to support your lies.
And then proceeded to make more lies about them.

I would agree with that only under certain circumstances.

So experts are only fallible under some circumstances?

When it comes ... validated piece of mature and known knowledge casting doubt on expert knowledge is no more than a demonstration of crass ignorance.

So Newton and Einstein are nothing more then demonstrations of crass ignorance?

Yet another argument that you crashed and burned on.

You mean yet another argument you were repeatedly refuted on, and had to repeatedly lie to pretend you aren't wrong?
Where you had to repeatedly flee from simple questions which demonstrated the stupidity of your claim?

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.

And I challenge you to stop challenging about what you falsely claim I said and instead provide direct quotes from me, and that means with a reference to check.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 04:35:23 AM

Flee!!

Yes, as you have done yet again.
Notice how you don't provide any quotes to justify your lies?
Notice how you still haven't addressed the simple questions that show you are wrong.

Quote

You call people liars when you have no comeback.

No, I call them liars when they repeatedly demonstrate they lie.

Quote

You never answer legitimate questions that are put to you.

I answer them all the time.
What I don't answer are illegitimate questions put to me based upon a blatant misrepresentation of what I have said.

Quote

What cult are you on about?

Your pathetic cult of blindly accepting whatever an expert says without thinking.
Your pathetic cult where the only possible to get knowledge is to blindly accept what an expert says.
Your pathetic cult, which if established long ago would have rejected the works of Einstein and Newton as going against orthodoxy.

Quote

You constantly talk nonsense. This for example:-
"How do you know the moon is made of cheese?"

Yes, a simple demonstration of your dishonest BS.

You keep asking stupid questions which are based upon blatantly lying about me.
That is no better than the question I presented.

Yes, you have never indicated you have been to the moon or the moon is made of cheese.
But likewise I have never indicated the mountains of BS you spout about me.

So either answer the question and tell me how you know the moon is made of cheese; or recognise the dishonest

Quote

You like all flat earth believers  fear experts.

PROVE IT!!

Stop just asserting BS to construct your elaborate strawmen, and PROVE IT!

Because right now, the one acting like a FEer is YOU!

You continually lie about what others say, you make up shit and pretend it must be true, you dodge questions which show your claims are pure BS.
And now you have ever resorted to acting like REers here are paid shills.

Quote

your own self proclaimed

STOP LYING!!!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Do you understand those basic instructions?

Stop with the blatant lies about me.
Each time you make them you just further demonstrate how dishonest, desperate and pathetic you are.
If you were honest you would either stop with these BS claims entirely, or provide a quote.

Quote

You have constantly argued against experts calling belief in the knowledge they produce as akin to belief in a cult.

No, I haven't.
Instead I have made it clear that what you are promoting is a cult.
You are not promoting science.

Quote

For example you say this:-

Yes, in direct response to what you have said and done.

e.g. in the thread on gyroscopes, do you make any attempt to refute the argument?
No. Instead you basically just say Earth is round.

That is no better than a religious person just boldly proclaiming there god is good while entirely ignoring an argument that shows it is evil.

That is cult like behaviour. Where you just regurgitate what your preachers have told you without even attempting to deal with the argument.

It would be like going to Newton and telling him he is wrong, because they experts say the natural state of things is at rest, not in uniform motion.
Telling Einstein that he is wrong for suggesting like can be both a wave and a particle, telling him he is wrong for suggesting a wave can propagate without a medium.

And so on.

What you are advocating for is a cult.
You are not advocating for science.

Again, a key difference between your cult and science, is that you demand blind acceptance of anything your preachers/prophets say.
In science, EVERYTHING is open for questioning, including the statements of experts; and when something appears that appears to contradict established knowledge, you investigate and see if it actually does, or if there is a mistake somewhere, you don't just dismiss it as wrong.

Quote

you who pretends

STOP LYING!!!
PROVIDE A QUOTE!!!

Do you understand those basic instructions?

Stop with the blatant lies about me.
Each time you make them you just further demonstrate how dishonest, desperate and pathetic you are.
If you were honest you would either stop with these BS claims entirely, or provide a quote.

Quote

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.

And straight back to the lies.

Again, here are the exact words you chose to defend (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88691.msg2324951#msg2324951):
"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."

Yet even your claim now is blatant misrepresentation of that statement.
You have yet again tried to move the goalposts.

You are trying to replace "what the subject matter experts say the Earth is" with "consulting expert sources" and "getting expert assistance".

Do you understand the difference?
To refute the statement you chose to defend, you can get loads of expert assistance to assist with designing and carrying out an experiment to determine what the shape of Earth is.
As long as they don't directly tell you Earth is round, the statement is false.
But with your delusional BS, if an expert so much as tells you 1+1=2, that is then magically discounted.

But because there is no way to defend the BS you chose to, you instead immediately resort to strawmen. Trying to demand I provide a method free from expert assistance.
But that wasn't what was claimed.
You set up a strawman and demanded I defend it.
I am under no obligation to defend your strawmen.
If you want it defended then YOU defend it.

Otherwise, defend what you actually chose to support.

Quote

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.

The fundamental distinction is that I am asking people to prove things they have claimed.
Conversely you are demanding I prove things for your strawman, not based upon what I have said.

My request is honest. Yours is dishonest BS because you can't defend your BS.

Quote

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

You provided quotes which failed to support your lies.
And then proceeded to make more lies about them.

Quote

I would agree with that only under certain circumstances.

So experts are only fallible under some circumstances?

Quote

When it comes ... validated piece of mature and known knowledge casting doubt on expert knowledge is no more than a demonstration of crass ignorance.

So Newton and Einstein are nothing more then demonstrations of crass ignorance?

Quote

Yet another argument that you crashed and burned on.

You mean yet another argument you were repeatedly refuted on, and had to repeatedly lie to pretend you aren't wrong?
Where you had to repeatedly flee from simple questions which demonstrated the stupidity of your claim?

Quote

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.

And I challenge you to stop challenging about what you falsely claim I said and instead provide direct quotes from me, and that means with a reference to check.

I can now add blind to stupid to your list of qualities.

No quotes!!! As someone once said “you cannot be serious”

But that is another example of your pretty typical behaviour. Lie then distort, followed by a  bit of deflection and never ever answer a question.

i do understand simple concepts.
that is why it is not monumental to think i could understand simple concepts if my brain were wiped and i were on a desert island, DEPSITE it being previously discovered because recorded history has existed beyond 2,000yrs.

which is the fatal flaw in your "everything requires experts".

because not everything requires experts.




and that's the point.
that's the only point.
in no way did i say i could self discover calculus.
in no way did i say i could self discover electricity.
in no way did i say i could self discover the DNA structure.
in no way did i say NOTHING requires an expert.

the only thing said, let me say very slowly for your dumb brain to understand, is that...



your all or nothing




statement




is absurd




because




it requires too strict





a







rule to be appplied






to





everything.

So I see still electing to not answer the question. Avoiding that at all costs.
Just saying you are right does not make you right. That requires proof, something that has been severely lacking.

That aside…. What the hell are you on about???

“DEPSITE it being previously discovered because recorded history has existed beyond 2,000yrs.”

Are you drunk?

Recorded history has existed beyond 2000 years??? Has it? And what does that have to do with Bob’s situation?

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.

And here is a further demonstration of the problem with your delusional BS.
You want it to be a brand new scientific discovery.
But this started with the shape of Earth.

Are you suggesting the shape of Earth is a brand new scientific discovery?

Or are you suggesting it is something quite plain, like fire is hot/burns, water is wet, wood floats, and so on?

Yes, the reasons you want to exclude it are obvious, because they obviously show you are wrong.

No goalposts have been moved. Expert help and assistance is as it says expert help and assistance.

Except as already established, that IS moving the goalposts.

You have moved the goalposts from "accepting what an expert says it is" to "getting any help at all from an expert"

Notice the difference?

Likewise, you have moved the goalpost from "a fairly mundane thing which plenty of people already know" to "a scientific breakthrough".

That is some quite significant goalpost moving.

All because you KNOW you cannot defend the BS you chose to.

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

No. I say your cult is a cult.
That is not a version of science.
That is a perversion of science.

Again, for science EVERYTHING IS OPEN TO QUESTION!

For your cult, if you contradict an expert then it is "a demonstration of crass ignorance".

Again, a fundamental difference can be seen with the work of Newton and Einstein.

Prior to Newton, the established, validated scientific knowledge, including from the contributions from experts like Aristotle, was that the natural state of all objects was to be at rest.

That if you got an object and pushed it, it would move for a bit, but eventually come to rest, i.e. v=0.
Then along Comes Newton, that instead thought that was pure BS, and that instead a force was making it come to rest.
Newton instead believed that the default state of objects was for there to be no acceleration, i.e. a=0.
This directly defied that established knowledge.

With your cult, Newton is dismissed as a crackpot and the orthodoxy prevails.
With science, Newton is allowed to challenge prior theories and overturn them if there is sufficient evidence.

Understand yet?

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.

And I demonstrate it multiple times, and you just ignore it.

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.

Accepting what they say without thinking or questioning, even if it goes directly against personal experience.

e.g. just accepting what the subject matter experts say Earth is. That there is no experiment you can do or observation you can make to confirm. That the only thing you can do is just accept what they say.
That if you have some personal experience that contradicts what they say, that you should discard it and just accept what they say.
That if it doesn't make sense to you, and you think there might be a problem, then you just ignore all that and accept what they say.

Why is his own belief in the things he believes in not just an example of blind acceptance?

Because unlike you I say that everything can be questioned.
I say that if your personal experience doesn't match what the experts say, or if you have questions about something that doesn't seem to make sense; then you are allowed to ask those questions and raised these issues. That you are allowed to investigate. That you can carry out experiments and observations yourself to see if they are consistent or contradictory.

Understand the difference?

You want us to just accept what the expert says without any ability to question, where questioning or not just accepting is taken as a demonstration of crass ignorance.
I instead say you are allowed to question. But that is not the same as just rejecting because you don't like it.

You really, like  Jack, have some over inflated opinion of yourself.

Yet you cannot show any over inflated opinion from either of us. Instead you just repeatedly claim it.
You repeatedly claim I claim to be an expert and all sorts of BS, yet you cannot provide a quote for that claim.
Conversely, you DID claim to be an expert.

I can now add blind to stupid to your list of qualities.

You mean your list of lies?

But that is another example of your pretty typical behaviour. Lie then distort, followed by a  bit of deflection and never ever answer a question.

You mean another example of your behaviour.

You repeatedly lied about me.
You refused to provide any quotes to back up your lies.
And you still cling to your strawmen while refusing to answer questions.

If proof were required you are barking mad then read this:-

“Your pathetic cult of blindly accepting whatever an expert says without thinking.
Your pathetic cult where the only possible to get knowledge is to blindly accept what an expert says.
Your pathetic cult, which if established long ago would have rejected the works of Einstein and Newton as going against orthodoxy.”

What the hell are you on about? Your ravings make no sense. The only thing I’ve rejected is your madness and that of flat earth belief. Are you comparing yourself to Newton and Einstein. That’s a bit rich even from you.

What the hell are you on about? Your ravings make no sense.

Yet you cannot show any part of it which doesn't make sense.

The only thing I’ve rejected is your madness and that of flat earth belief.

No, you have rejected the idea of anyone rejecting or questioning "established and validated scientific [cult] knowledge".

Are you comparing yourself to Newton and Einstein. That’s a bit rich even from you.

No. I'm providing examples of people you likely accept as experts, that did the very thing you are condemning.
They rejected/questioned "established and validated scientific knowledge".
If you apply your cult standard to them, you dismiss them as displacing crass ignorance and all the other BS you have said about people like that.

But you are honest enough to be consistent.

That is not me comparing myself to them. That is me demonstrating the problem with your cult.

So just how is it proof I am barking mad, when I can so easily demonstrate the problem with your cult?

This demonstrates quite clearly how you have lost your grip on reality, you stated this:-


“e.g. just accepting what the subject matter experts say Earth is. That there is no experiment you can do or observation you can make to confirm. That the only thing you can do is just accept what they say.
That if you have some personal experience that contradicts what they say, that you should discard it and just accept what they say.
That if it doesn't make sense to you, and you think there might be a problem, then you just ignore all that and accept what they say”

Subject matter experts say what the earth is!!!

What the hell Jack!!! If you need to confirm things like the shape of the earth for yourself then you have serious problems. There is no expert on the ‘shape of the earth’ as it’s common knowledge that is basic to many many disciplines. I’ve even seen the pictures and the video. I read  and see things every day that confirm this basic knowledge. Why would I want to conduct an experiment to verify it? Only a mad person like yourself would ever contemplate such a thing.

Have you conducted experiments to prove everything you rave on about on this forum? Have you conducted experiments to prove Saturn is real and not some celestial aberration? How can you be sure?

Your statement proves that you are verging on madness, on the one hand feeling the need to prove commonly known things that are globally accepted due to their daily validation. Only mad people and conspiracy driven flat earthers reject such things. Then you quite happily drone on about things you have no hope of verifying! Recently you grinned on about Norse Gods! What personal experience have you in that subject? Are you fluent in Old Norse? If not the. You have no way of verifying the accuracy or validity of what you were saying.
Once more you demonstrate that you are a fraud.

yes
recorded history beyond 2,000yrs.
because...well history.

and what's that got to do with anything?

well because if a modern person says they would draw a circle and determine the ratio between rightangles and diameters and circumferences, then you would say "but it was discovered XYZ years ago".

that's the stupidity of the trap.
that's why i pointed it out.
that's why you're a POS.

no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so
for the umpteenth time to answer your question "can someone determine something after someone else has already determined it" is a stupid question and a strawman to your original statement "to know anything requires an expert".
Any answer given you will say "but it's been done before ergo expertexpertexpert", so no, bob can not do anything that hasn't already been done before him, because that requires bob to not only have amnesia, but also time travel.

that is the umptteenth time i've answered.
the answer being - you're a POS.


and also no, that answer isn't what we're arguing about here.
the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.


amazing how that works eh?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:14:56 PM

What the hell are you on about? Your ravings make no sense.

Yet you cannot show any part of it which doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:14:56 PM

The only thing I’ve rejected is your madness and that of flat earth belief.

No, you have rejected the idea of anyone rejecting or questioning "established and validated scientific [cult] knowledge".

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:14:56 PM

Are you comparing yourself to Newton and Einstein. That’s a bit rich even from you.

No. I'm providing examples of people you likely accept as experts, that did the very thing you are condemning.
They rejected/questioned "established and validated scientific knowledge".
If you apply your cult standard to them, you dismiss them as displacing crass ignorance and all the other BS you have said about people like that.

But you are honest enough to be consistent.

That is not me comparing myself to them. That is me demonstrating the problem with your cult.

So just how is it proof I am barking mad, when I can so easily demonstrate the problem with your cult?

Jack, why are you referring to Time being in a cult because he believes experts? This part of your argument makes no sense whatsoever, in fact, it's actually offensive.

Essentially you are saying, Time is in a cult because he believes in the status quo and puts his faith in academics and the accreditation system of what an expert is.

Is it wrong for Time to think civilisation is built upon discovery?

What definition of a cult are you applying to Time, because I'm not seeing anything fitting.

What definition of a cult are you applying to Time, because I'm not seeing anything fitting.

I think it’s becoming clear Jack is a cult onto his or her self. 

Shrugs. 

Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.

Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.

If intelligence requires a design expert then who designed the design expert?

And also, what exactly is intelligence?

Does intelligence become specific to humans or is it specific to all life?
And back to the start. What is intelligence and how is it defined?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2024, 05:51:20 PM

Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.

If intelligence requires a design expert then who designed the design expert?

And also, what exactly is intelligence?

Does intelligence become specific to humans or is it specific to all life?
And back to the start. What is intelligence and how is it defined?

Ours is not to wonder why, septic boy, ours is just to do or die.

yes
recorded history beyond 2,000yrs.
because...well history.

and what's that got to do with anything?

well because if a modern person says they would draw a circle and determine the ratio between rightangles and diameters and circumferences, then you would say "but it was discovered XYZ years ago".

that's the stupidity of the trap.
that's why i pointed it out.
that's why you're a POS.

no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so
for the umpteenth time to answer your question "can someone determine something after someone else has already determined it" is a stupid question and a strawman to your original statement "to know anything requires an expert".
Any answer given you will say "but it's been done before ergo expertexpertexpert", so no, bob can not do anything that hasn't already been done before him, because that requires bob to not only have amnesia, but also time travel.

that is the umptteenth time i've answered.
the answer being - you're a POS.


and also no, that answer isn't what we're arguing about here.
the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.


amazing how that works eh?

Talk about contradicting your self. Did you read what you actually wrote?

Let me help you;

“no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so”

We are born we are taught certain things and conventions by our parents. We go to school/college/university where we learn from a vast multitude of experts  from all sorts of disciplines through both personal contact and books. All verified and validated knowledge we come to know, Newtons laws of motion, ohm’s law, Boyle’s law, etc  were discovered by those experts who the laws were named after. To go on and make new discoveries in any of these fields requires learning from this already known and verified expert knowledge. To progress in any subject a foundation provided by existing expert knowledge is a must and pre requisite.

You then say;

“the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.”

No, no , no….  Your statement is false and contradicts your previous one!

Your above statement is what’s false as there can be no advanced learning without first enlisting the assistance of experts at the outset. You appear to suggest that one can learn in a vacuum!

What could Bob on his island discover? Could he design an advanced computer without first studying the ‘basics’ of computing as presented by the likes of Turing?

Your two statements contradict each other! In one you clearly state that knowledge we learn can not be un-learnt. In other words the expert derived knowledge we already possess grants the ability to learn new things. Without that expert knowledge we would not be able to learn anything!

Learning the already existing and validated expert knowledge is the only way forward as it’s what every education system on the planet is built on.

Even Newton himself went to school then university to learn from experts that enabled him to make his monumental discoveries. Even the genius who was Newton could not have done it in his own. While he eventually mostly worked independently he had a vast library for the time that contained expert knowledge that he drew on.

Without the help and aid of experts our ability to learn is severely diminished.

My statement is not false.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2024, 12:43:53 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2024, 05:51:20 PM

Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.

If intelligence requires a design expert then who designed the design expert?

And also, what exactly is intelligence?

Does intelligence become specific to humans or is it specific to all life?
And back to the start. What is intelligence and how is it defined?

Ours is not to wonder why, septic boy, ours is just to do or die.

Life is about wondering why, not to just be born and to live and to die.
You wouldn't read detective novels if you didn't wonder about the books.

This demonstrates quite clearly how you have lost your grip on reality, you stated this:

Says the one who needs to continually lie about what people say.

Subject matter experts say what the earth is!!!

What the hell Jack!!! If you need to confirm things like the shape of the earth for yourself then you have serious problems.

The issue is not if you NEED to, but if you CAN!
If it is science, YOU CAN.
If it is a cult where you must blindly accept whatever BS the preacher says, YOU CAN'T.

I’ve even seen the pictures and the video. I read  and see things every day that confirm this basic knowledge.

You mean you didn't need to consult what a subject matter expert says Earth is?
You mean the comment you chose to defend is pure BS?

Are you finally going to admit it this time? Admit you were wrong.

Or will you continue with dishonest BS?

Your statement proves that you are verging on madness

Says the one repeatedly fleeing from posts, ignoring what is said, blatantly lying about what people say and so on, while creating loads of threads.
I think you have way passed that verge.

Once more you demonstrate that you are a fraud.

No, once more you demonstrate your blatant dishonesty.
Ignoring what you have done in the past, lying about me, and setting up a strawman to attack.

No, no , no….  Your statement is false and contradicts your previous one!

No, it doesn't contradict the previous one.
Again, do you understand what possible means?

Your above statement is what’s false as there can be no advanced learning without first enlisting the assistance of experts at the outset.

Which wasn't what they said.
Try more basic learning.

In one you clearly state that knowledge we learn can not be un-learnt. In other words the expert derived knowledge we already possess grants the ability to learn new things. Without that expert knowledge we would not be able to learn anything!

No, that doesn't follow at all.

No where does it say that you need that expert knowledge to learn things. Instead it is merely saying what is learnt can't be unlearnt.
Like if someone tells you the ending to a story, you can't just unlearn that ending.

But that doesn't mean you can't write an entirely different ending.

Learning the already existing and validated expert knowledge is the only way forward as it’s what every education system on the planet is built on.

No, it is A way forward.
Learning that without understanding where people are just thought to regurgitate crap is a horrible way of learning.

Instead, using that knowledge to have students think critically, including carrying out experiments for them to get some of that knowledge first hand is vastly superior.

Even Newton himself went to school then university to learn from experts that enabled him to make his monumental discoveries.

You mean the discoveries which would result in you classifying him as displaying "crass ignorance" for going against the "established, validated, scientific knowledge"?

My statement is not false.

Which statement? You have made so many in your pathetic attempts to move the goalposts.

Jack, why are you referring to Time being in a cult because he believes experts? This part of your argument makes no sense whatsoever, in fact, it's actually offensive.

Essentially you are saying, Time is in a cult because he believes in the status quo and puts his faith in academics and the accreditation system of what an expert is.

Is it wrong for Time to think civilisation is built upon discovery?

What definition of a cult are you applying to Time, because I'm not seeing anything fitting.

Try reading what I have said and understanding it, then you might not say such stupidity.

I have explained it several times, including directly to you. Only for you to entirely ignore the post.
Go back, read what I have said, and try responding to that.

Again, it isn't that he merely believes experts.
It isn't that he believes the status quo.

It is that he has set up an entirely cult like system dedicating to worshipping experts where he just blindly accepts whatever they say without thinking or questioning and attacking those who don't agree with what they say. He doesn't try to refute their arguments, instead he just says they are wrong, because they don't believe the right thing.

yes
recorded history beyond 2,000yrs.
because...well history.

and what's that got to do with anything?

well because if a modern person says they would draw a circle and determine the ratio between rightangles and diameters and circumferences, then you would say "but it was discovered XYZ years ago".

that's the stupidity of the trap.
that's why i pointed it out.
that's why you're a POS.

no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so
for the umpteenth time to answer your question "can someone determine something after someone else has already determined it" is a stupid question and a strawman to your original statement "to know anything requires an expert".
Any answer given you will say "but it's been done before ergo expertexpertexpert", so no, bob can not do anything that hasn't already been done before him, because that requires bob to not only have amnesia, but also time travel.

that is the umptteenth time i've answered.
the answer being - you're a POS.


and also no, that answer isn't what we're arguing about here.
the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.


amazing how that works eh?

I do have to wonder about how some people think. Contradictions appears to be the name of the game!

It’s not only the non-expert that requires experts but experts also require other experts. Its how the world works.

What is one of the most important facilities in a university? The library, used mainly by squads of undergraduates. Why? A library, generally speaking, will contain books that have generally accepted knowledge which is a requirement and a necessity for father advanced learning. All the books being produced by a variety of subject specific experts.

At Phd level and Post doc level other factors come into play. Journals and papers written by fellow advanced subject experts that attempt to probe the boundaries of specific subjects become required reading. This unverified  expert produced information is shared among all those other subject experts to learn from. No one works in a vacuum everyone learns from everyone else. Regardless of who you are expert help is required at what ever level you are operating at. To say otherwise is no more than an act of delusion and rejection of the reality of the world. Sceptimatic and his world is the outcome where all expert knowledge is ignored He prefers the world according to Sceptamatic free from the constraint of facts and evidence.

To demonstrate your absolute contradictory stance on this look at your reaction to the posts produced by the expert free thoughts of Sceptamatic. He has rejected all expert knowledge and opts for making things up. Every academic in the world would reject what he believes. Thats the outcome when experts are ignored and rejected.  You yourself reject what Sceptamatic says on those very same grounds. Not because of any discoveries you yourself have made or verified but because you accept the scientific consensus produced by experts.

I think it’s time for you to decide which side of the coin you go along with.  Heads/experts or tails/Sceptamatic.

I do have to wonder about how some people think. Contradictions appears to be the name of the game!

Conversely, I have to wonder if you think at all.

The claim which started all this BS of yours was proven to be wrong with a proof by contradiction.
You repeatedly contradict yourself.

No one works in a vacuum everyone learns from everyone else.

Until you propose a hypothetical where someone does.
Which then raises the question, is this help REQUIRED, or is it just better?

i.e. is it the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY, or is there another possible way which just isn't as good?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:39:21 PM

This demonstrates quite clearly how you have lost your grip on reality, you stated this:

Says the one who needs to continually lie about what people say.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:39:21 PM

Subject matter experts say what the earth is!!!

What the hell Jack!!! If you need to confirm things like the shape of the earth for yourself then you have serious problems.

The issue is not if you NEED to, but if you CAN!
If it is science, YOU CAN.
If it is a cult where you must blindly accept whatever BS the preacher says, YOU CAN'T.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:39:21 PM

I’ve even seen the pictures and the video. I read  and see things every day that confirm this basic knowledge.

You mean you didn't need to consult what a subject matter expert says Earth is?
You mean the comment you chose to defend is pure BS?

Are you finally going to admit it this time? Admit you were wrong.

Or will you continue with dishonest BS?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:39:21 PM

Your statement proves that you are verging on madness

Says the one repeatedly fleeing from posts, ignoring what is said, blatantly lying about what people say and so on, while creating loads of threads.
I think you have way passed that verge.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 20, 2024, 01:39:21 PM

Once more you demonstrate that you are a fraud.

No, once more you demonstrate your blatant dishonesty.
Ignoring what you have done in the past, lying about me, and setting up a strawman to attack.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

No, no , no….  Your statement is false and contradicts your previous one!

No, it doesn't contradict the previous one.
Again, do you understand what possible means?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

Your above statement is what’s false as there can be no advanced learning without first enlisting the assistance of experts at the outset.

Which wasn't what they said.
Try more basic learning.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

In one you clearly state that knowledge we learn can not be un-learnt. In other words the expert derived knowledge we already possess grants the ability to learn new things. Without that expert knowledge we would not be able to learn anything!

No, that doesn't follow at all.

No where does it say that you need that expert knowledge to learn things. Instead it is merely saying what is learnt can't be unlearnt.
Like if someone tells you the ending to a story, you can't just unlearn that ending.

But that doesn't mean you can't write an entirely different ending.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

Learning the already existing and validated expert knowledge is the only way forward as it’s what every education system on the planet is built on.

No, it is A way forward.
Learning that without understanding where people are just thought to regurgitate crap is a horrible way of learning.

Instead, using that knowledge to have students think critically, including carrying out experiments for them to get some of that knowledge first hand is vastly superior.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

Even Newton himself went to school then university to learn from experts that enabled him to make his monumental discoveries.

You mean the discoveries which would result in you classifying him as displaying "crass ignorance" for going against the "established, validated, scientific knowledge"?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

My statement is not false.

Which statement? You have made so many in your pathetic attempts to move the goalposts.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 20, 2024, 02:36:29 PM

Jack, why are you referring to Time being in a cult because he believes experts? This part of your argument makes no sense whatsoever, in fact, it's actually offensive.

Essentially you are saying, Time is in a cult because he believes in the status quo and puts his faith in academics and the accreditation system of what an expert is.

Is it wrong for Time to think civilisation is built upon discovery?

What definition of a cult are you applying to Time, because I'm not seeing anything fitting.

Try reading what I have said and understanding it, then you might not say such stupidity.

I have explained it several times, including directly to you. Only for you to entirely ignore the post.
Go back, read what I have said, and try responding to that.

Again, it isn't that he merely believes experts.
It isn't that he believes the status quo.

It is that he has set up an entirely cult like system dedicating to worshipping experts where he just blindly accepts whatever they say without thinking or questioning and attacking those who don't agree with what they say. He doesn't try to refute their arguments, instead he just says they are wrong, because they don't believe the right thing.

Well, flat earthers are fucking wrong. I've explained how they can be right and I've explained how they are currently fucking wrong.

I asked you for the official definition of cult you are using to refer to Time, and you cant do it, can you? Time's stance is not cult like as you rudely put it, and it isnt in line with what being in a cult is all about.

I could equally absurdly argue that you are in some cult where every member must prove by their own experimentation the world around them and never appeal to expertise. Oh wait, that's what flat earthers are supposed to do, but never ever do. How ironic.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 02:33:08 AM

I do have to wonder about how some people think. Contradictions appears to be the name of the game!

Conversely, I have to wonder if you think at all.

The claim which started all this BS of yours was proven to be wrong with a proof by contradiction.
You repeatedly contradict yourself.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 02:33:08 AM

No one works in a vacuum everyone learns from everyone else.

Until you propose a hypothetical where someone does.
Which then raises the question, is this help REQUIRED, or is it just better?

i.e. is it the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY, or is there another possible way which just isn't as good?

Tell me about this other alleged possible way.....some examples would be good.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2024, 05:51:20 PM

Possibly jackB doesnt like the relgious notion that morality requires an moral expert

And intelligence requires a design expert



Or he doesnt like absolutes.

If intelligence requires a design expert then who designed the design expert?

And also, what exactly is intelligence?

Does intelligence become specific to humans or is it specific to all life?
And back to the start. What is intelligence and how is it defined?

Not sure if you got my ref but these are two theistic claims for a god.

And jackb is very antitheist.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2024, 01:58:08 PM

yes
recorded history beyond 2,000yrs.
because...well history.

and what's that got to do with anything?

well because if a modern person says they would draw a circle and determine the ratio between rightangles and diameters and circumferences, then you would say "but it was discovered XYZ years ago".

that's the stupidity of the trap.
that's why i pointed it out.
that's why you're a POS.

no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so
for the umpteenth time to answer your question "can someone determine something after someone else has already determined it" is a stupid question and a strawman to your original statement "to know anything requires an expert".
Any answer given you will say "but it's been done before ergo expertexpertexpert", so no, bob can not do anything that hasn't already been done before him, because that requires bob to not only have amnesia, but also time travel.

that is the umptteenth time i've answered.
the answer being - you're a POS.


and also no, that answer isn't what we're arguing about here.
the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.


amazing how that works eh?

Talk about contradicting your self. Did you read what you actually wrote?

Let me help you;

“no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so”

We are born we are taught certain things and conventions by our parents. We go to school/college/university where we learn from a vast multitude of experts  from all sorts of disciplines through both personal contact and books. All verified and validated knowledge we come to know, Newtons laws of motion, ohm’s law, Boyle’s law, etc  were discovered by those experts who the laws were named after. To go on and make new discoveries in any of these fields requires learning from this already known and verified expert knowledge. To progress in any subject a foundation provided by existing expert knowledge is a must and pre requisite.

You then say;

“the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.”

No, no , no….  Your statement is false and contradicts your previous one!

Your above statement is what’s false as there can be no advanced learning without first enlisting the assistance of experts at the outset. You appear to suggest that one can learn in a vacuum!

What could Bob on his island discover? Could he design an advanced computer without first studying the ‘basics’ of computing as presented by the likes of Turing?

Your two statements contradict each other! In one you clearly state that knowledge we learn can not be un-learnt. In other words the expert derived knowledge we already possess grants the ability to learn new things. Without that expert knowledge we would not be able to learn anything!

Learning the already existing and validated expert knowledge is the only way forward as it’s what every education system on the planet is built on.

Even Newton himself went to school then university to learn from experts that enabled him to make his monumental discoveries. Even the genius who was Newton could not have done it in his own. While he eventually mostly worked independently he had a vast library for the time that contained expert knowledge that he drew on.

Without the help and aid of experts our ability to learn is severely diminished.

My statement is not false.

Once again you fail to grasp - your question was designed for one singular purpose and is a strawman.

It is akin to

Can god create a rock so big he cant lift it?



It is not that itnis a contradiction.
Its premise is set up so thar you have set traps and outs for "requirin an expert"


Does bobs amnesia means he forgot the shape, but knows how to do math?
"But math existed before bob and bob learned it before his amensia so bob used an expert!" says timieieis.

Does bob have enough time to walk 100s of km to check the angles of a sundial?
"But someone made a sundial so that person knows about time and time was taught to him by an expert!" says timeieses.



And the heart of your stupid stance is "everything needs an expert".
Agreed.
Everything NEEDS an expert.
As you say.
I need an expert farmer to feed me.
I need an expert computer person to make this phone work.

I needed an expert 1st grade teacher who knows about advanced physyics math and the cosmos to tell me the earth is a ball...
Because she learned it from an actual expert who learned it from an actual expert expert expert....

Until we find the chicken and the egg was actually a dinosaur.
So whcihc came first - the dinosayr or the egg?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 21, 2024, 01:53:13 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2024, 01:58:08 PM

yes
recorded history beyond 2,000yrs.
because...well history.

and what's that got to do with anything?

well because if a modern person says they would draw a circle and determine the ratio between rightangles and diameters and circumferences, then you would say "but it was discovered XYZ years ago".

that's the stupidity of the trap.
that's why i pointed it out.
that's why you're a POS.

no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so
for the umpteenth time to answer your question "can someone determine something after someone else has already determined it" is a stupid question and a strawman to your original statement "to know anything requires an expert".
Any answer given you will say "but it's been done before ergo expertexpertexpert", so no, bob can not do anything that hasn't already been done before him, because that requires bob to not only have amnesia, but also time travel.

that is the umptteenth time i've answered.
the answer being - you're a POS.


and also no, that answer isn't what we're arguing about here.
the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.


amazing how that works eh?

Talk about contradicting your self. Did you read what you actually wrote?

Let me help you;

“no modern person can unknow the things the world already knows.
so”

We are born we are taught certain things and conventions by our parents. We go to school/college/university where we learn from a vast multitude of experts  from all sorts of disciplines through both personal contact and books. All verified and validated knowledge we come to know, Newtons laws of motion, ohm’s law, Boyle’s law, etc  were discovered by those experts who the laws were named after. To go on and make new discoveries in any of these fields requires learning from this already known and verified expert knowledge. To progress in any subject a foundation provided by existing expert knowledge is a must and pre requisite.

You then say;

“the argument was "knowing is only possible through experts" = false.”

No, no , no….  Your statement is false and contradicts your previous one!

Your above statement is what’s false as there can be no advanced learning without first enlisting the assistance of experts at the outset. You appear to suggest that one can learn in a vacuum!

What could Bob on his island discover? Could he design an advanced computer without first studying the ‘basics’ of computing as presented by the likes of Turing?

Your two statements contradict each other! In one you clearly state that knowledge we learn can not be un-learnt. In other words the expert derived knowledge we already possess grants the ability to learn new things. Without that expert knowledge we would not be able to learn anything!

Learning the already existing and validated expert knowledge is the only way forward as it’s what every education system on the planet is built on.

Even Newton himself went to school then university to learn from experts that enabled him to make his monumental discoveries. Even the genius who was Newton could not have done it in his own. While he eventually mostly worked independently he had a vast library for the time that contained expert knowledge that he drew on.

Without the help and aid of experts our ability to learn is severely diminished.

My statement is not false.

Once again you fail to grasp - your question was designed for one singular purpose and is a strawman.

It is akin to

Can god create a rock so big he cant lift it?



It is not that itnis a contradiction.
Its premise is set up so thar you have set traps and outs for "requirin an expert"


Does bobs amnesia means he forgot the shape, but knows how to do math?
"But math existed before bob and bob learned it before his amensia so bob used an expert!" says timieieis.

Does bob have enough time to walk 100s of km to check the angles of a sundial?
"But someone made a sundial so that person knows about time and time was taught to him by an expert!" says timeieses.



And the heart of your stupid stance is "everything needs an expert".
Agreed.
Everything NEEDS an expert.
As you say.
I need an expert farmer to feed me.
I need an expert computer person to make this phone work.

I needed an expert 1st grade teacher who knows about advanced physyics math and the cosmos to tell me the earth is a ball...
Because she learned it from an actual expert who learned it from an actual expert expert expert....

Until we find the chicken and the egg was actually a dinosaur.
So whcihc came first - the dinosayr or the egg?

Who said anything about a God? I have no idea what the mythical god you mentioned is!

"Can god create a rock so big he cant lift it?"

You tell me as I have no belief in any of the 3000 or so gods people over the years have created to then believe in. I would imagine in some belief systems that those gods could accomplish anything, but Im only guessing as it's a subject I have no interest in. I'll leave that to the foolish and gullible.

But tell me:-

Do you grow all your own food?

Do you refine all your own fuel?

Do you generate all your own electricity?

Did you manufacture your own computer, car, etc, etc.....Ill let you fill in all the things you have.

Do you manufacture all your own drugs?

Do you make all your own clothes?

Did you build your own house?

Do you carry out all the medical/dental procedures on yourself and your family?

Did you create all your own Gods?

I could go on if you wish. All you demonstrate is your total lack of real understanding of the initial question and the lack of an ability to see beyond the end of your own nose.

In the real world you could not live without the support of a wide variety of experts and that is a fact.

Its quite clear that you don't understand the place and the scope of experts in our modern world.

Youre fucked in the head.
Tell menmore how i didnt understand the question?
Maybe tell me, with more confidence if it were pissible, how my understanding of what you tried to do was incorrect?


What is the paradox of the stone?
The Stone Paradox provides an example of two tasks (creating a stone its creator cannot lift and lifting the stone one has just created) such that each task is logically possible, but it is logically impossible for one task to be performed immediately after the other.
https://iep.utm.edu › omnipote
Omnipotence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy




A causality dilemma is more commonly known as the chicken or the egg paradox! It characterizes situations in which it is challenging to determine between the cause of an event and the effect. Even the Greek-Roman philosopher Plutarch couldn't exactly come up with a solution.
https://www.treehugger.com › fina...
Finally Answered! Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

Youre fucked in the head.
Tell menmore how i didnt understand the question?
Maybe tell me, with more confidence if it were pissible, how my understanding of what you tried to do was incorrect?


What is the paradox of the stone?
The Stone Paradox provides an example of two tasks (creating a stone its creator cannot lift and lifting the stone one has just created) such that each task is logically possible, but it is logically impossible for one task to be performed immediately after the other.
https://iep.utm.edu › omnipote
Omnipotence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy




A causality dilemma is more commonly known as the chicken or the egg paradox! It characterizes situations in which it is challenging to determine between the cause of an event and the effect. Even the Greek-Roman philosopher Plutarch couldn't exactly come up with a solution.
https://www.treehugger.com › fina...
Finally Answered! Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

You could of course answer the questions I raised.

The stone paradox has no real relevance here, as there is no paradox present, but where you source your food from does along with all the other things I mentioned.

The area of expertise does not elicit and paradox. Your introduction of it is yet another red herring to deliberately avoid answering the question.

There is also no chicken or egg situation. That is your own creation formed from your very own ignorance of the history of knowledge.

When it comes to knowledge no farmyard fowl are relevant.

The acquisition of knowledge through human history did not involve chickens or eggs unless they formed some part of a meal. Rather it was a slow and incremental process rather than some ...we don't have any knowledge....now we do situation.

It's no attempt at a fudge to say the study of human knowledge is a very complex and difficult to trace process. Try reading the Journal of the history of knowledge to understand what I mean.
https://journalhistoryknowledge.org/article/view/11160

There lies the problem of trying to engage with a subject you know not much about. While I know little of the complexities what I do understand how complex it was and that it can in no way be described by either a chicken or egg statement or some irrelevant stone paradox.

if you think i'm asking about expertise in chickens and farming you're amazing stupid.



let's try one more time.


your stupid questions:

Can you (jack/ kabool) pretend to be bob, and although you know things using the things, pretend you don't know the things, can you (jack/ kabool) pretend to not know the things and self determine and know the things?


akin to:

Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it?

becuase you know that we can't unknow what we already know.
so anything we say, you'll say "but you learned that".
so therefore it's a stupid question.






and your ultimate intent is to:

determine which came first?  the knowledge or the knowledge that started the knowledge?

Well, flat earthers are fucking wrong.

Which doesn't mean Timmy isn't proposing a cult.

I asked you for the official definition of cult you are using to refer to Time, and you cant do it, can you? Time's stance is not cult like as you rudely put it, and it isnt in line with what being in a cult is all about.

It is a quite common word that most people know the meaning of.
If you really can't use a dictionary, here it is:
"a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."
The only possible objection is that his cult has multiple people that are venerated, rather than just one.

But his behaviour is entirely cult like.
There is nothing rude about calling that out.

The "experts" he wants people to just blindly accept are the figures of his cult.

I could equally absurdly argue that you are in some cult where every member must prove by their own experimentation the world around them and never appeal to expertise. Oh wait, that's what flat earthers are supposed to do, but never ever do. How ironic.

Yes, you could blatantly lie about me.
But other than proving your own dishonesty, what purpose would that serve?

Tell me about this other alleged possible way.....some examples would be good.

Already did in the other thread.

Ultimately, all knowledge has been obtained from something other than experts.
Someone had to get that knowledge to become an expert, to spread that knowledge.
That means someone had to be able to get it without just getting it from an expert.

Then the question becomes how much knowledge can one build from scratch before they die.
As that would be the total knowledge you can get without any assistance from any experts.

But again, that was not the original claim you chose to defend.
The original claim had nothing to do with expert assistance. It was accepting what the expert says.