Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

Well well well...not like him to follow the stories we are told

He going to come back with it's not his model it's just vaguely similar to his musings. He has already played that card today but then dodged saying what his model is

He is a WUM but is worth entertaining because of the debate he provokes

 

[What A Waster]

He going to come back with it's not his model it's just vaguely similar to his musings. He has already played that card today but then dodged saying what his model is

He is a WUM but is worth entertaining because of the debate he provokes

Agreed.
I ask him a question, thinking right that's irrefutable... a new thing comes out. Asked about tides, why they happen. It's an undetectable pressure wave that only works on water. Different to the pressure that is detectable that causes wind.
Then the lads on here who really know their stuff chip in and i learn stuff that i didn't know

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Try divorcing the rhetoric from the subject matter. If someone were to contend that World War I never actually occurred based on nobody alive having direct and irrefutable proof that it did, they'd say things very much like:

It's all about what is acceptable and what begs questions.
Everything can be debated as to the realities of a story and potential misinformation when the debating parties are not in possession of the known facts.

When one is willing to separate oneself from the accumulated knowledge of mankind that is derived from repeatable and consistent experiments - even if these experiments cannot all be repeated by a random punter in his flat in Seaham - for the simple reason of uncomprehending personal incredulity, then folly is likely to ensue. It has.

If a person refuses to accept something as factual based on not seeing facts then that's their right.
It's all about whether a person wants to follow a narrative set out regardless of proof or whether the narrative is worth questioning.
Many people have followed a narrative or trend and later found it questionable later in life.

Some would've questioned it at the start but likely shot down in favour of the puhed narrative of the time.
Just remember that doctors apparently used to put their names to certain brands of cigarettes. Just for starters.
Advertisements galore for cigarette brands and people followed the trend of it being fine. But was it?


That's just one instance, so try and forgive people who question narratives just because you may not.

It's possibly a wind up, but if not it comes across as total paranoia. Imagine disbelieving everything and thinking it's all a lie. Disputing everything because you can't comprehend it so everybody is just out to fool us. For no apparent reason

I don't, so hope that clears things up for you.

Some interesting background reading. Bear in mind that thinks handed to us on a plate, documented by other people are apparently invalid:

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

That's not valid. It's how a person has depicted his model. It doesn't mean it's a truth.

Brilliant research, well done

It's pretty simple to find.

Well well well...not like him to follow the stories we are told

No story getting followed with thats et up. The shape is a reference to how I see Earth and that's it. Is there an ice dome over this?

There's angels in the corners of a square Earth.
Does mine resemble square or did I lop that off?

I could've used an orange squeezer but that would've sent people into raptures saying I think it's an orange squeezer.

Either way it will be dug at so I say, treat it how you feel it suits you best. I'm fine with whatever.
I'm just letting you know.

 

[SYB_DC]

If a person refuses to accept something as factual based on not seeing facts then that's their right.
It's all about whether a person wants to follow a narrative set out regardless of proof or whether the narrative is worth questioning.
Many people have followed a narrative or trend and later found it questionable later in life.

Some would've questioned it at the start but likely shot down in favour of the puhed narrative of the time.
Just remember that doctors apparently used to put their names to certain brands of cigarettes. Just for starters.
Advertisements galore for cigarette brands and people followed the trend of it being fine. But was it?

That's an insane example, because it's an example of exactly what you don't want it to be: a group of people applying the scientific method, analyzing facts, and changing their opinions. It wasn't a "pushed narrative" that caused people to think cigarettes were healthy or unhealthy, it was understanding the full effects of smoking tobacco. Short-term benefits such as stress reduction and appetite suppression end up outweighed by long-term issues like cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. But it's science, not "narratives."

It's also silly because you're proposing something on a scale entirely different than "are cigarettes healthy?" Accepting your views on this thread requires throwing out or discounting thousands of years of observations and carefully-derived studies - independently derived many times in many places - in numerous branches of science.

And I don't know where to even begin with "If a person refuses to accept something as factual based on not seeing facts then that's their right." By that token, I can state that breathing air causes death. After all, everyone who breathes air dies, right? Never mind the intervening and inconvenient fact - which you gave me permission to ignore - that failure to breathe causes death much more rapidly.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's an insane example, because it's an example of exactly what you don't want it to be: a group of people applying the scientific method, analyzing facts, and changing their opinions. It wasn't a "pushed narrative" that caused people to think cigarettes were healthy or unhealthy, it was understanding the full effects of smoking tobacco. Short-term benefits such as stress reduction and appetite suppression end up outweighed by long-term issues like cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. But it's science, not "narratives."

It's also narratives.

And I don't know where to even begin with "If a person refuses to accept something as factual based on not seeing facts then that's their right." By that token, I can state that breathing air causes death. After all, everyone who breathes air dies, right? Never mind the intervening and inconvenient fact - which you gave me permission to ignore - that failure to breathe causes death much more rapidly.

If you know the facts then you can state them. If you don't then you are subservient to a set narrative if you're willing to push something out as fact which you do not have the facts for, personally..

 

[SYB_DC]

It's also narratives.



If you know the facts then you can state them. If you don't then you are subservient to a set narrative if you're willing to push something out as fact which you do not have the facts for, personally..

You seem to be unwilling to separate "narratives" from facts, and your chief reason for remaining deliberately ignorant is that you are unwilling to credit the factual nature of things that you have not personally observed.

It's rather interesting when applied literally. For once farcical example, someone applying your logic literally would have a high degree of skepticism in booking a plane ticket to somewhere he had never visited as - according to your own logic - that person would not have the facts to state confidently that the place he's booking a ticket to even exists. His baseline assumption would be that its alleged existence - rather than a mundane fact - is a convenient expedient to some unknown "narrative," presumably that the airline industry wants people to buy lots of plane tickets.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You seem to be unwilling to separate "narratives" from facts, and your chief reason for remaining deliberately ignorant is that you are unwilling to credit the factual nature of things that you have not personally observed.

Narratives can be facts or fictional.
If I can't get a narrative verified as fact then I have a right to disbelieve it until questioned enough to gain evidence of proof.
I'll credit facts when proof of them are obvious.
I'll accept a story of fact or fiction if I have no reason to question it. Acceptance is not a belief.

It's rather interesting when applied literally. For once farcical example, someone applying your logic literally would have a high degree of skepticism in booking a plane ticket to somewhere he had never visited as - according to your own logic - that person would not have the facts to state confidently that the place he's booking a ticket to even exists. His baseline assumption would be that its alleged existence, rather than a mundane is a convenient expedient to some unknown "narrative," presumably that the airline industry wants people to buy lots of plane tickets.

And this is where acceptance comes into it.
If I get on a plane to a certain destination told to me then I'll accept it as it is.

 

[SYB_DC]

Narratives can be facts or fictional.
If I can't get a narrative verified as fact then I have a right to disbelieve it until questioned enough to gain evidence of proof.
I'll credit facts when proof of them are obvious.
I'll accept a story of fact or fiction if I have no reason to question it. Acceptance is not a belief.

And this is where acceptance comes into it.
If I get on a plane to a certain destination told to me then I'll accept it as it is.

This is pretty much the Dunning-Kruger effect applied to the entire corpus of human knowledge and experience. Impressive, really.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This is pretty much the Dunning-Kruger effect applied to the entire corpus of human knowledge and experience. Impressive, really.

Absolutely nothing to do with Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[SYB_DC]

Absolutely nothing to do with Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yes, it is. It's you overestimating your ability to evaluate scientific evidence across a broad range of disciplines.

"When proof of them are obvious" in your post has two implied key words that you seem to ignore. The full sentence is "When proof of them are obvious to me." The essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect is a blindness or refusal to yield to the fact that there are people who really do know more or better than you, and that your own rudimentary or incomplete knowledge is equal in validity to theirs. That's precisely what you're doing: saying things aren't obvious enough to credit, when in fact they are perfectly obvious to anyone with even slightly greater understanding than you have.

 

[zwartekat]

Yes, it is. It's you overestimating your ability to evaluate scientific evidence across a broad range of disciplines.

"When proof of them are obvious" in your post has two implied key words that you seem to ignore. The full sentence is "When proof of them are obvious to me." The essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect is a blindness or refusal to yield to the fact that there are people who really do know more or better than you, and that your own rudimentary or incomplete knowledge is equal in validity to theirs. That's precisely what you're doing: saying things aren't obvious enough to credit, when in fact they are perfectly obvious to anyone with even slightly greater understanding than you have.

He won't like that.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, it is. It's you overestimating your ability to evaluate scientific evidence across a broad range of disciplines. "When proof of them are obvious" in your post has two implied key words that you seem to ignore.

No. It's me questioning and not accepting stuff that has no proof, which I'm more than entitled to do.
You have no clue if there's proof against what I'm arguing other than to abide by the narrative set out as your proof, on that basis only.
If you think I'm wrong then offer me a proof of what I'm arguing against.

The full sentence is "When proof of them are obvious to me."

Yep and proof isn't obvious to me. If it can be made obvious then I'm more than open to it.
Can you make it obvious?

The essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect is a blindness or refusal to yield to the fact that there are people who really do know more or better than you, and that your own rudimentary or incomplete knowledge is equal in validity to theirs.

Yep, over or underestimating one's own abilities. I'd say we all have it when it comes to that. That's not a Dunning-Kruger effect, it's a natural human trait that has had the names of two people tied to discovering something which is in every person.

That's precisely what you're doing: saying things aren't obvious enough to credit, when in fact they are perfectly obvious to anyone with even slightly greater understanding than you have.

Things can be obvious.
A video of a star wars spaceship can be obvious but is it a proof of a real spaceship?

 

[DaveH]

You seem to be unwilling to separate "narratives" from facts, and your chief reason for remaining deliberately ignorant is that you are unwilling to credit the factual nature of things that you have not personally observed.

It's rather interesting when applied literally. For once farcical example, someone applying your logic literally would have a high degree of skepticism in booking a plane ticket to somewhere he had never visited as - according to your own logic - that person would not have the facts to state confidently that the place he's booking a ticket to even exists. His baseline assumption would be that its alleged existence - rather than a mundane fact - is a convenient expedient to some unknown "narrative," presumably that the airline industry wants people to buy lots of plane tickets.

Fair enough, doubt facts and prove for yourselves. We can't all prove everything, for example this one has talked a lot about molecules but I doubt he has a tunnelling electron microscope required to see them. So at some level we all make a decision where you say this bit I want to prove for myself, this one I will accept.

Though perhaps a third state is that you accept something but weight up how reasonable and widespread the sources are. For example the Daily Mail says a new island in the Atlantic has just been discovered which is exactly the same shape as a comedy cock drawing. You would doubt that. If a number of well respected cartographic sources reported it and we had satellite imagery then you would give it more credibility. You also consider the reason for saying something. Clearly with the Daily Mail it is click-bait, cartography companies have far less to gain. Actually a decrease in their credibility really harms their business so they compete with each other on accuracy.

However if anyone posts they have proved something themselves from first principals and can verify facts, this one just follows that up with "nah bollocks", dismissing that person as a clueless idiot, saying their proof is invalid, not actually giving any reason for it or picking it apart on a detailed level, but instantly writing off any evidence that doesn't fit his narrative. Some days that is flat - water is level and now it appears some days that is lemon squeezer, but hey my bath tub still works on non level because of reasons.

 

[SYB_DC]

Yep, over or underestimating one's own abilities. I'd say we all have it when it comes to that. That's not a Dunning-Kruger effect, it's a natural human trait that has had the names of two people tied to discovering something which is in every person.

Well, yes, it is the Dunning-Kruger effect. The difference between you and me on that front is the degree to which we are willing to admit our own blind spots: in other words, the degree to which we recognize and credit what we don't know but that is known by smarter or more educated people versus substituting our own judgment for theirs and succumbing to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And you seem to have this problem when it comes to rhetoric, too, as your Star Wars example shows.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Fair enough, doubt facts and prove for yourselves. We can't all prove everything, for example this one has talked a lot about molecules but I doubt he has a tunnelling electron microscope required to see them. So at some level we all make a decision where you say this bit I want to prove for myself, this one I will accept.

Though perhaps a third state is that you accept something but weight up how reasonable and widespread the sources are. For example the Daily Mail says a new island in the Atlantic has just been discovered which is exactly the same shape as a comedy cock drawing. You would doubt that. If a number of well respected cartographic sources reported it and we had satellite imagery then you would give it more credibility.

You mean like this picture supposedly of pluto that just happens to have a picture of pluto on it, taken from a supposed probe, cassini?

You must be logged on to see external links

You also consider the reason for saying something. Clearly with the Daily Mail it is click-bait, cartography companies have far less to gain. Actually a decrease in their credibility really harms their business so they compete with each other on accuracy.

Or the opposite of it.

However if anyone posts they have proved something themselves from first principals and can verify facts, this one just follows that up with "nah bollocks", dismissing that person as a clueless idiot, saying their proof is invalid, not actually giving any reason for it or picking it apart on a detailed level, but instantly writing off any evidence that doesn't fit his narrative.

Nahhh, I don't dismiss anyone off as an idiot. You're projecting as per usual.
The fact is. The real fact is, nobody has offered any proof and you absolutely know this.
Plenty have offered what they believe is a proof. There is a massive difference.

Some days that is flat - water is level and now it appears some days that is lemon squeezer, but hey my bath tub still works on non level because of reasons.

I've never said it's flat but as per usual when people go against a globe they're a flat Earther with a disc and water falling off the edges but held up by elephants and turtles...etc.
That's down to people like yourself using it as your battering ram when you struggle to offer proof.

The only thing I've said is flat and level is unhindered water......and it is....and you know it....and so does anyone who uses their own logic.

Well, yes, it is the Dunning-Kruger effect. The difference between you and me on that front is the degree to which we are willing to admit our own blind spots: in other words, the degree to which we recognize and credit what we don't know but that is known by smarter or more educated people versus substituting our own judgment for theirs and succumbing to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And you seem to have this problem when it comes to rhetoric, too, as your Star Wars example shows.

So basically I was correct.

 

[SYB_DC]

So basically I was correct.

You're correct in your own tautological world in which the line between skepticism and denial is more or less coterminal with the boundaries of your own experience. You're the smartest person inside your own head, yes. Correctamundo.

 

[bernardbresslaw]

Narratives can be facts or fictional.
If I can't get a narrative verified as fact then I have a right to disbelieve it until questioned enough to gain evidence of proof.
I'll credit facts when proof of them are obvious.
I'll accept a story of fact or fiction if I have no reason to question it. Acceptance is not a belief.

And this is where acceptance comes into it.
If I get on a plane to a certain destination told to me then I'll accept it as it is.

How many of your mates agree with this shite?

 

[legend7]

The only thing I've said is flat and level is unhindered water......and it is....and you know it....and so does anyone who uses their own logic.

But on your drawing there are large areas of water (seas in our terminology) on a slope with no barriers to stop them running down to the lowest parts of your "map"

 

[DaveH]

You mean like this picture supposedly of pluto that just happens to have a picture of pluto on it, taken from a supposed probe, cassini?

You must be logged on to see external links

Or the opposite of it.

Nahhh, I don't dismiss anyone off as an idiot. You're projecting as per usual.
The fact is. The real fact is, nobody has offered any proof and you absolutely know this.
Plenty have offered what they believe is a proof. There is a massive difference.

I've never said it's flat but as per usual when people go against a globe they're a flat Earther with a disc and water falling off the edges but held up by elephants and turtles...etc.
That's down to people like yourself using it as your battering ram when you struggle to offer proof.

The only thing I've said is flat and level is unhindered water......and it is....and you know it....and so does anyone who uses their own logic.

So basically I was correct.

If it didn’t have pluto on the picture, it would not be a picture of pluto.

What next? Why pictures of the moon always have a picture of the moon and not a salted caramel sundae? That is suspicious I have to admit.

 

[payne]

If it didn’t have pluto on the picture, it would not be a picture of pluto.

What next? Why pictures of the moon always have a picture of the moon and not a salted caramel sundae? That is suspicious I have to admit.

Cassini is around Saturn anyway, not Pluto. That photo he posted is from the New Horizons mission.