The philosophy thread

[Heisenberg]

Yes, I am familiar with the typical geocentrists' tropes. You've simply listed experiments intended to measure the movement of Earth which failed. I'm guessing you have already been over the details with others, and heard the standard rebuttals. If that's the conversation you want to have again, then go for it.

I'm guessing if someone pointed out video from space which shows the Earth rotating, you would explain that by the relative motion of the camera (which is actually partially correct). If someone mentions a Foucault pendulum, would you then bring up Mach's principle? If I pointed out the retrograde motion of planets, would you cite Tycho's model?

You don't have to intend to publish your explanation before it is okay to question it. I have no problem with you making these posts, obviously, but criticism is a necessary part of discussion if ideas are to improve. You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony, but in doing to you signal to the rest of us that you are primarily looking to confirm rather than to test your idea.

 

[Darth Vapour]

Bottom line enjoy the here and now hug a loved one , keep a public door open for a stranger.. Pay it forward .. Cause after your heart stops beating, there is nothing more, nor has there ever been anything more .. you remembrance will be from how many you effected in the real time once there gone or moved on you are again NOTHING

 

[reddan1981]

Yes, I am familiar with the typical geocentrists' tropes. You've simply listed experiments intended to measure the movement of Earth which failed. I'm guessing you have already been over the details with others, and heard the standard rebuttals. If that's the conversation you want to have again, then go for it.

I'm guessing if someone pointed out video from space which shows the Earth rotating, you would explain that by the relative motion of the camera (which is actually partially correct). If someone mentions a Foucault pendulum, would you then bring up Mach's principle? If I pointed out the retrograde motion of planets, would you cite Tycho's model?

You don't have to intend to publish your explanation before it is okay to question it. I have no problem with you making these posts, obviously, but criticism is a necessary part of discussion if ideas are to improve. You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony, but in doing to you signal to the rest of us that you are primarily looking to confirm rather than to test your idea.

But if I'm having a friendly chat on a weed site, why do I need to use logical consistency or commonly used principles? Are you not trying to control? Does that not suggest you have tendencies to control? Are your control issues not a more wiser focus to your critical thought? The Foucault pendulum shows movement, not that WE move. Celestial Wind theory/ New Ether theory can explain the movement fairly accurately.
Parsimony has no context in this discussion. Did you know Tycho's student was keplar in fact the complete work of keplar was plagiarism of calculations and observations of his tutor.

 

[Heisenberg]

But if I'm having a friendly chat on a weed site, why do I need to use logical consistency or commonly used principles? Are you not trying to control? Does that not suggest you have tendencies to control? Are your control issues not a more wiser focus to your critical thought? The Foucault pendulum shows movement, not that WE move. Celestial Wind theory/ New Ether theory can explain the movement fairly accurately.
Parsimony has no context in this discussion. Did you know Tycho's student was keplar in fact the complete work of keplar was plagiarism of calculations and observations of his tutor.

Actually, what I said was "You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony." What part of that do you find controlling? Parsimony is a principle nature herself dictates, it's not for me to press it upon you. I've simply stated that if you choose to ignore investigative principles you can't really expect others to take you seriously. It's not terribly convincing. If we remove logic and sound reasoning from our process we can argue any concept as true. As I mentioned, I have a dragon in my garage. Like I said, if that's the sort of conversation you want to have, go for it. Just don't be surprised when others recognize it as mere mental masturbation.

It's no coincidence that alternative hypotheses always seek to remove the quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy, because it is those very controls witch filter the hypothesis out and expose it as nonsense.

 

[reddan1981]

Actually, what I said was "You are, of course, free to ignore logical consistency and principles like parsimony." What part of that do you find controlling? Parsimony is a principle nature herself dictates, it's not for me to press it upon you. I've simply stated that if you choose to ignore investigative principles you can't really expect others to take you seriously. It's not terribly convincing. If we remove logic and sound reasoning from our process we can argue any concept as true. As I mentioned, I have a dragon in my garage. Like I said, if that's the sort of conversation you want to have, go for it. Just don't be surprised when others recognize it as mere mental masturbation.

It's no coincidence that alternative hypotheses always seek to remove the quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy, because it is those very controls witch filter the hypothesis out and expose it as nonsense.

My friend I have made this as clear as I can to you. My prerogative is to generate conversation. I have said that this is my belief. I have posted proof to back my belief that the world is flat even though in this situation it is not necessary but is a requirement of yours , now it is your turn to produce your proof of my ignorance. The way a debate works in a friendly discussion is how? You get cartblanche to insult without using the same criteria for your own reply. Is that not hypocritical dude? All I am asking is that you use your full criticism towards your own answer, PROVE me wrong, prove a globe earth with out a bogus picture, show me a verified experiment (not the ship disappearing into the horizon, as that can be ripped apart). Or please don't try to put my logic down, I have done my homework but I'm not infallible. How has the universe demonstrated it needs quality control?

 

[Moonwalk]

Reality is the place where there is no tv, no phone, no weapon, no car, and you need to deal with something. That is where you are most alive, when you are the most vulnerable. You hear every blade of grass brush, every twig, your senses are heightened.

It's also driving fifteen minutes in Los Angeles traffic, and right in the middle of the 405 you realize you left the money in the ATM.

 

[Heisenberg]

My friend I have made this as clear as I can to you. My prerogative is to generate conversation. I have said that this is my belief. I have posted proof to back my belief that the world is flat even though in this situation it is not necessary but is a requirement of yours , now it is your turn to produce your proof of my ignorance. The way a debate works in a friendly discussion is how? You get cartblanche to insult without using the same criteria for your own reply. Is that not hypocritical dude? All I am asking is that you use your full criticism towards your own answer, PROVE me wrong, prove a globe earth with out a bogus picture, show me a verified experiment (not the ship disappearing into the horizon, as that can be ripped apart). Or please don't try to put my logic down, I have done my homework but I'm not infallible. How has the universe demonstrated it needs quality control?

But you don't seem to like that conversation unless it only challenges you in a specific way. You want to stay within the frame of your diatribe. That's not how debate works. You make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. When others debating do not find your arguments convincing, you cannot simply lower the standards for evidence or place the burden on them to disprove, at least not while also making references to proper debate. Telling others they cannot disprove your ideas is no different than saying your ideas are unfalsifiable, which puts those ideas on the same level as creationists. And, like creationists, your ideas only work if we narrow our scope, ignore quality controls, and embrace confirmation bias. You don't want to actually explore the truth-value of the concept of a flat-earth, you simply want others to help you masturbate over it.

 

[reddan1981]

But you don't seem to like that conversation unless it only challenges you in a specific way. You want to stay within the frame of your diatribe. That's not how debate works. You make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. When others debating do not find your arguments convincing, you cannot simply lower the standards for evidence or place the burden on them to disprove, at least not while also making references to proper debate. Telling others they cannot disprove your ideas is no different than saying your ideas are unfalsifiable, which puts those ideas on the same level as creationists. And, like creationists, your ideas only work if we narrow our scope, ignore quality controls, and embrace confirmation bias. You don't want to actually explore the truth-value of the concept of a flat-earth, you simply want others to help you masturbate over it.

Again you have told me how I should of presented my belief to be accepted by you. Look back to your first post in reply to my quote, already you're saying I'm making up 'adhoc excuses' to people pointing out holes in my 'theory'. Lol you were the first to raise a question to me so by your own logic I had already made excuses for holes you were going to pull in my theory. This means one of a couple of possible motives for your attempt to debate me;
1. Since this is the first communication we have had under this avatar name, you are holding resentment. This could be a general resentment toward others, but I believe it might be that, we have debated under one of your sock accounts.
2. You just copy and paste replys, in which case you have failed even more miserably.

You can't produce observable,repeatable experiments that prove a globe can you?

 

[Heisenberg]

Again you have told me how I should of presented my belief to be accepted by you. Look back to your first post in reply to my quote, already you're saying I'm making up 'adhoc excuses' to people pointing out holes in my 'theory'. Lol you were the first to raise a question to me so by your own logic I had already made excuses for holes you were going to pull in my theory. This means one of a couple of possible motives for your attempt to debate me;
1. Since this is the first communication we have had under this avatar name, you are holding resentment. This could be a general resentment toward others, but I believe it might be that, we have debated under one of your sock accounts.
2. You just copy and paste replys, in which case you have failed even more miserably.

You can't produce observable,repeatable experiments that prove a globe can you?

Your attempt to play the persecution card is as typical and transparent as your denialism. It can't be that you are spewing nonsense, it must be that I personally dislike you, or that I just have a bad disposition. Cognitive dissonance seems to have once again found the path of least resistance.

I did not know you before this thread, and I haven't disagreed with everything you've said. We actually have some common ground when it comes to your ideas about consciousness. All I've said is that your advocacy for a flat-earth/geocentrism is pretty much textbook denialism. It's a conversation I've had many times, and it's nearly always the same. Look up any debate on flat-earth websites/forums and you'll see it over and over. Your arguments are known as PRATTs (point refuted a thousand times). You could easily find their counters if you were interested, but instead you want to debate here where it is easier to find people who are not equipped to refute you, and who might be swayed by your sophistry. The steps in your song and dance are not original, and have their counterparts in creationism, anti-vax, aids denialism, fluoride truthers, ect. Narrow the scope, cherry-pick certain arguments, ignore obvious contradictions, and claim unfair treatment when challenged.

Geocentrism is easy to argue when you insist on one frame of reference. It's a perfectly valid frame when you are standing on the Earth looking out. It's when you go outside that frame that you either have to misuse relativity to bolster your arguments, or deny it completely. Both avenues are demonstrably wrong, and better people than I have provided the arguments to demonstrate it.

You can't produce observable,repeatable experiments that prove a globe can you?

This is a great example. Several times I you have asked me to disprove you, and several times I have explained that the burden falls to you. This isn't unfair. It is, in fact, what is expected of anyone who sits at the adult table. You constantly try to re-position the argument so that people try to shoot you down, to bait them into giving you the familiar arguments that you are comfortable rejoinding. All of this is done under the false dichotomy that says if a globe cannot be proven, then flat automatically becomes correct. It's just not convincing to stand up and say "hey, if we throw out concepts like parsimony and logical consistency, a spheroid earth doesn't make sense, therefore flat." I'm sorry if I am ruining that for you, but such is the peril of debating on public forums.

 

[reddan1981]

Your attempt to play the persecution card is as typical and transparent as your denialism. It can't be that you are spewing nonsense, it must be that I personally dislike you, or that I just have a bad disposition. Cognitive dissonance seems to have once again found the path of least resistance.

I did not know you before this thread, and I haven't disagreed with everything you've said. We actually have some common ground when it comes to your ideas about consciousness. All I've said is that your advocacy for a flat-earth/geocentrism is pretty much textbook denialism. It's a conversation I've had many times, and it's nearly always the same. Look up any debate on flat-earth websites/forums and you'll see it over and over. Your arguments are known as PRATTs (point refuted a thousand times). You could easily find their counters if you were interested, but instead you want to debate here where it is easier to find people who are not equipped to refute you, and who might be swayed by your sophistry. The steps in your song and dance are not original, and have their counterparts in creationism, anti-vax, aids denialism, fluoride truthers, ect. Narrow the scope, cherry-pick certain arguments, ignore obvious contradictions, and claim unfair treatment when challenged.

Geocentrism is easy to argue when you insist on one frame of reference. It's a perfectly valid frame when you are standing on the Earth looking out. It's when you go outside that frame that you either have to misuse relativity to bolster your arguments, or deny it completely. Both avenues are demonstrably wrong, and better people than I have provided the arguments to demonstrate it.



This is a great example. Several times I you have asked me to disprove you, and several times I have explained that the burden falls to you. This isn't unfair. It is, in fact, what is expected of anyone who sits at the adult table. You constantly try to re-position the argument so that people try to shoot you down, to bait them into giving you the familiar arguments that you are comfortable rejoinding. All of this is done under the false dichotomy that says if a globe cannot be proven, then flat automatically becomes correct. It's just not convincing to stand up and say "hey, if we throw out concepts like parsimony and logical consistency, a spheroid earth doesn't make sense, therefore flat." I'm sorry if I am ruining that for you, but such is the peril of debating on public forums.

You have set the burden of proof on my shoulders. I can provide proof, I have provided tid bits for your appetite, but you're pushing them around the plate with out trying them. How can I even attempt to show that it is YOUR delusions that are stalling this talk. It is YOU that has based your logic in false truths, your refusal to provide any experiments proves you can not prove your arguments against me. So... Whilst i have no doubt you can string a sentence together, your objections to my reasoning shows you lack self awareness. I can show you the lies that have cemented themselves into science. I can show you the connection of corruption to NASA and your government, smithsonian, various social programs that are running currently. I can show you that we live in a magnetic and dielectric field. But until you attempt even my first evidence all this will be is talk. Your problem is your belief in your own intelligence. I however am stupid, but you still haven't proven... anything yet?

You keep dancing this question also, you said 'quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy' How does or has the universe demonstrated it needs anything, let alone quality controls?

 

[reddan1981]

Copernicus introduced mainstream heliocentric THEORY, one of many theories attempting to explain related aspects of our planetary bodies. Kepler's equations attempted to provide mathematical proof of Copernicus's THEORY. His equations were based on his teachers observations Tycho Brahe*, who strongly opposed Copernican THEORY. Kepler himself admits "I myself, a professional mathematician, on re-reading my own work find it strains my mental powers to recall to mind from the figures the meanings of the demonstrations, meanings which I originally put into figures and the text from my mind". When Kepler succeeded Tycho as Imperial mathematician to the HOLY Roman Emperor Rudolf II, he returned the favour by immortalising the Emporors name by naming the Rudolphine Tables after him.

Isaac Micheal Newton
Newton was a devout Arian, thoroughly Christian, but belonging to a stream that rendered him a heretic. His theories extended to world extinction dates. Even in matters of faith and religion Newton was politically incorrect, but more correct than the majority would—or could—have admitted. Regardless, his Arianism Newton kept to himself, since at the time, in such an orthodox religious climate, to proclaim it would have meant the likely ruination of his career. Newton was also a Creationist. He believed in the Biblical Creation story—that God made the heavens and the earth in seven days—but he qualified this quite ingeniously. Since it is not specified in the Scriptures that all seven days were of equal length—because there was no Earth during the first two days, and thus, no twenty-four-hour day based upon planetary rotation—the length of a day could have been anything the good Lord desired.
Newton also managed to calculate a date for the second coming of Christ—some time during 1948. ( Newton appears to have missed the mark.) Prophecy and Biblical interpretation occupied Newton even in the last weeks of his life. Trying to ascertain when the Day of Judgement would come was, for Newton, an irresistible intellectual puzzle to be solved by one who was worthy of the challenge.
Picknett and Prince have written that everymajor character in the Scientific Revolution was steeped in Hermeticism,including; Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, William Gilbert, William Harvey, and Newton’s nemesis Leibniz. In fact, all of Copernicus’ “radical” notions—especially the heliocentric concept—are to be found in the Hermetica, which originated from 2nd or 3rd century Alexandria, but To return specifically to Newton once more, the cute little tale (originating from Newton) about seeing an apple fall from a tree and thereupon falling into a “deep meditation” on the nature of gravity some time in the summer of 1666 is obviously a politically correct and safe enough version of events that would have served to protect Newton’s image from his secret obsession with alchemy and esotericism.
In reality, his alchemical creation in 1670 of the prized Star Regulus of Antimony (a step on the way to producing the Philosopher’s Stone) was probably one of many factors that fed into Newton’s theory of gravity as it ultimately appeared in the Principia of 1687. Due to its radiating shard-like crystals, the Regulus could be viewed as symbolic of the way gravity (or aether) flows into the centre of a celestial body. Besides being anathema to traditional science and society in general, the attempted transmutation of base metals into gold was also a capital offence. Newton needed to hide his pursuits in order to remain on the side of legality as well as to preserve his image and reputation as history’s greatest scientist. Still, as Picknett and Prince state: “Newton didn’t make his great discoveries despite his occult beliefs, but because of them.”

 

[VTMi'kmaq]

What i'd like to understand and appreciate alil more is

How long before we can get off this rock and jump on another?

 

[reddan1981]

NASA foundations begin with the frame work that was NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) which was formally disbanded under instruction from Eisenhower.
NACA started under Woodrow Wilson. Its chairman was Brigadier General George Scriven. Who was also chief of the Armyas Signal Corps (a main committee of 12 members representing the government, military and industries).
NACAs head rocket scientist (and supposedly father of rocket science) was a man named John Whiteside Parsons (also known as Jack).
Successor to him was Von Braun.
Eisenhowers parents were Jehovahs Witness he was recorded as Christian, but practiced mysticism through free masonry.
Brigadier General George Scriven (freemason)
Woodrow Wilson (Freemason)
Werner Von Braun (christian, freemason) ascribes to Nazism.
NASA is undeniably indistinguishable from the American military and again of the American government and should not be trusted.

 

[Heisenberg]

You keep dancing this question also, you said 'quality controls that the universe itself has demonstrated as necessary for accuracy' How does or has the universe demonstrated it needs anything, let alone quality controls?

That is, of course, my own term. "Quality controls" is a good description of many of the restrictions, rules and principles necessary for scientific investigation. Many of them are there as a way of compensating for biases and common pitfalls inherit to human thinking, but some are there because nature has shown us they are needed if we want to reach accurate answers. Obviously I am taking some poetic liberties here with my description, but if we want to listen to what nature/reality/the universe is telling us, science is the best tool capable of delivering the clearest reception. (I do leave room for other methods when considering the inner, subjective world and how it relates.)

Parsimony, for example, is a rule that nature dictates. It's part of the scientific method because everything we have observed about nature tells us she favors the concept. There is no scientific or logical reason to dismiss the idea that aliens are responsible for crop circles; it explains the evidence quite nicely (or did for a long time). But if we want to get to the bottom of it, we must filter the explanation through parsimony. The explanation which makes the fewest assumptions is that humans are responsible. For a while we had no evidence of this whatsoever and Occams razor was the only thing causing us to favor such a conclusion. But, now that we have youtube, everyone can see complicated crop circles being made in short amounts of time right before their eyes.

I can show you the lies that have cemented themselves into science.

Science is a process. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the process are lies, and how they made their way into science.

"Science is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” - Steven Novella

 

[tyler.durden]

Heis meet reddan. My pet name for him is Dunning-Kruger, after the famous study on competence. He doesn't understand logical consistency, the scientific method, rules of debate, and he is unfamiliar with cognitive science, critical thinking and logical fallacies. I have come to the conclusion that he is not interested in discovering the facts of objective reality, instead his goal seems to be to do whatever he can to protect his irrational beliefs that we sheep are all being fooled, but that he is not and has the answers. Most of which lie outside the 'brainwashed mainstream.' You should stop by the moon landing hoax thread in T&T if you ever find yourself out of things to read when on the toilet. I enjoy reading your posts, and witnessing reddan get smacked around, but I feel bad that this is time out of your life that you won't get back...

 

[reddan1981]

Science is a process. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the process are lies, and how they made their way into science.
Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? [/QUOTE]

I disagree with not having verifiable, observable and repeatable experimentation to back up the theoretical writing we are supposed to accept as Gospel. I have shown you experiments that you can conduct that prove a flat, stationary earth. I have eluded to the fact that, there are many scientific theories but how many of them are backed with experimentation? I have a fairly comprehensive grasp of scientific methods, saying something is so, is a lot easier than proving it.
You can not disprove my belief, nor could you prove your belief. So your wise words are nothing more than fodder.
Your belief has NEVER been PROVEN. Show me the experimental evidence that give you the authority to out right dismiss my thoughts on this.
You believe your position is concrete, HISTORY proves it isn't. If you were more observant you would understand this.

 

[reddan1981]

Heis meet reddan. My pet name for him is Dunning-Kruger, after the famous study on competence. He doesn't understand logical consistency, the scientific method, rules of debate, and he is unfamiliar with cognitive science, critical thinking and logical fallacies. I have come to the conclusion that he is not interested in discovering the facts of objective reality, instead his goal seems to be to do whatever he can to protect his irrational beliefs that we sheep are all being fooled, but that he is not and has the answers. Most of which lie outside the 'brainwashed mainstream.' You should stop by the moon landing hoax thread in T&T if you ever find yourself out of things to read when on the toilet. I enjoy reading your posts, and witnessing reddan get smacked around, but I feel bad that this is time out of your life that you won't get back...

Did you suppose a position of authority over my intellect?
Did I submit that position to you? I think I did. Prematurely. I gave you the chance to talk with me and you chose to use it, pretending to be a psychoanalytic specialist. I told you to wake from YOUR delusions. We are on a weed site stop pretending to be an authority. Understand how to communicate, without the condescending tones and we could have gotten somewhere with our dialect, I'm sorry if I offended you and I'm sorry that you couldn't look past my inability to format a response that you could understand.
If you were to REALLY understand Dunning-Kruger's analysis of psychology, you would identify your own behaviour. You lack the meta cognitive process.

 

[tyler.durden]

Did you suppose a position of authority over my intellect?
Did I submit that position to you? I think I did. Prematurely. I gave you the chance to talk with me and you chose to use it, pretending to be a psychoanalytic specialist.

You often display trouble addressing and/or arguing against what is actually said, so you create strawmen with which you are comfortable. We're just two dudes exchanging ideas over the internet, I never pretended to be anything more...

I told you to wake from YOUR delusions.

What would those be?

We are on a weed site stop pretending to be an authority.

An authority on what?

Understand how to communicate, without the condescending tones and we could have gotten somewhere with our dialect, I'm sorry if I offended you and I'm sorry that you couldn't look past my inability to format a response that you could understand.

I believe I am an effective communicator, I hear as much regularly. I never have trouble understanding, or being understood by, rational or learned members. You haven't offended me. The reason we hit an impasse at each encounter is not because I don't understand what you are conveying, it's all simple enough and I've read it many times before. It is because you choose to hold on to your pet ideas and beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic. It's as if these ideas were tied to your self-esteem or sense of identity, you hold on so desperately. Like Heis said, you really are like a creationist in this way...

If you were to REALLY understand Dunning-Kruger's analysis of psychology, you would identify your own behaviour. You lack the meta cognitive process.

I'm always trying to improve my meta cognition. I love cognitive science, and I study it regularly. Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Doug Hofstadter, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker are favorites of mine, and I've read most of their work. I believe that my more serious posts display a fair meta cognitive process. You on the other hand often display the lack of one, along with a lack of basic science education. For example, you have posted material that you clearly don't understand, intending it supported your point, but when examined the material was shown to be against your point (I hesitate to link to examples to embarrass you). But instead of being humbled by these errors, or even acknowledging them, you boldly and arrogantly attempt to deflect or ignore the instance, and often change the subject and go on a non sequitur offensive. This is a major reason why you do not show growth or improvement in your thinking. As I've stated before, you need to learn the basics, and learn to recognize errors in your thinking that are likely holding you back. Why not start by becoming familiar with the informal logical fallacies? Doing this really helped me recognize faulty logic in my thinking and hence, my beliefs. I think you'll recognize many of these informal fallacies in your thinking and debate tactics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[reddan1981]

Real knowledge is understanding what we don't know Tyler. You pretend to know a lot more than you actually know, but again that is the character you wish to be perceived by. Your refusal to demonstrate how your arguments come from solid foundation and your failure to understand what SHOULD constitute scientific fact shows your ignorance, that your own arguments could be viewed as ad hominem and your sly techniques of poisoning my inkwell.... and of course your argument from personal incredulity.

 

[reddan1981]

For example, you have posted material that you clearly don't understand, intending it supported your point, but when examined the material was shown to be against your point (I hesitate to link to examples to embarrass you).

Please feel free to produce this, or any evidence to conclusively prove I am wrong on ANY OF MY BELIEVES for that matter. In fact if you can't, shall we make a deal that we agree to disagree.