1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flat Earth Society and Earth Globe: How to refute Globe?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by questfortruth, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +113
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Team Flat are followers of Flat shape of Earth, team Globe are followers of Globe (like sphere) shape of Earth.

    1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
    Falsifiability - Wikipedia

    2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

    3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

    4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

    5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.

    "you can get it if you really want, but you must try, try and try - you succeed at last"

    6. Opponent: "The key part of science is that you can refute it if it is wrong, not that you can refute it in general."
    It is not the Official wording of Scientific Method. There are no words "confirm", "to prove", "Absolute True" in the section of Science called "Methodology". You are working without the Popper's criterion, you are working within "Science is confirmable" Method. The Science is "confirmable until it would be refuted". Otherwise once refuted things are forever refutable, so are scientific.

    7. To prove my points I am asking you to want to believe in my correctness.
    If your mind is set to refute, then you will ``refute'' even God Almighty
    by a wishful thinking, like the Immanuel Kant did with St. Thomas
    Aquinas's five ways of proving of God. So, the Hitchens's razor
    ``Burden of Proof'' and Sir Karl Popper's criterion``Science is refutable''
    are not quite perfect ways to build up collective inter-disciplinary
    knowledge.

    Nihilistic Quote: ``we don't know what is out there; people might give an answer,
    but they are probably wrong'' in Dr. Michio Kaku thesises:

    ``Science vs. God: It's The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It''


    ``The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality''


    8. The fact is not refutable? Yes. Then it is not Scientific. Evolution is a fact? A fact is not refutable? Yes. Then Evolution is not Scientific. Fact is synonym of Absolute Truth (e.g. of a theory), but Truth is not mentioned in Methodology of Popper.

    9. There are two conflicting Methodologies:

    A. Science is refutable, until it is Absolutely Proved as irrefutable Fact. After that it is not Science, but a religion.

    B. Science is confirmable, until it is refuted. So, Theology is Science.

    And there is Good-Evil, Paradise-Hell, Darwinism-Creationism, Left Wing - Right Wing, Sin-Holiness: there are dichotomy. Correct?


    Opponent: "No one ever claims that Science is a religion".
    100 percent sure, bro. LOL. "CERN confirms Mock Human Sacrifice took place at CERN"

    10. The Hitchens's razor ``Burden of Proof'' is from hell. Indeed, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has one simple problem: who decides, that there is no evidence presented? If journal editor, then the author looses own right on appeal and gets rejected.

    11. The Occam's razor ``more simple theory is more true'' drives the Science to most simple theory: reality is just a mass-hallucination (absolute solipsism). ``The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality'' (YouTube).

    Opponent: "your post is also lacking in clarity of message." Just because something is very complicated, this thing is wrong? It is Occam's razor speaking in you.

    12. Opponent: "Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable. It means it would be possible to refute it if it was wrong, not that you can refute it even if it is correct."

    How this is different from "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted"?
    You are talking as a sane person. Therefore you are not using Popper's method. Latter is nihilistic absurd.

    Opponent: "Newton's Laws of Motion were never "confirmable" - a situation arose in which where they were shown to be inaccurate.
    But they were "falsifiable" because they have been falsified in certain situations. Those laws have served well right to the present day but we now are aware of there limitations."

    The laws of Newton are being confirmed in any school on the planet even today: F=ma, F=Mm G/R^2, etc.
    They are confirmed in the area of applicability. For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein. A confirmation of Flat Earth model does not mean, that model is proved. Confirmation is just passing a test. The proof is the Absolute Truth.

    Jesus Takes My Burdens Away

    13. Opponent:
    "On top of that there simply is no flat-earth model that is remotely "confirmable" if that is your criterion.
    As a trivial example, this morning at about 05:30, a little after sunrise the sun's direction was about 109┬░.
    Please explain how a sun circling well North of here can appear well South of East? Bendy light?
    You're the "Astronomer", so if anyone knows the explanation, you should.
    Now if you try to claim it's off topic just how many "confirmation" failures does it take to rebut a "theory"?"

    Your intuition is perfect. Yes, my pebbles in parallel post show, that there can indeed be Dark Force, which bends light. Bendy light then. However, the FE model has much more freedom than GE model: the Dark Force is arbitrary function of space and time.
    Two pebbles have debunked round Earth theory?

    Opponent:
    "Again, stop trying to blatantly misrepresent Falsifiability of Popper.
    All this means is that if it is wrong, you can show that to be the case.
    That certain hypothetically possible observations (which don't necessarily have to actually be observed in reality)
    This distinguishes it from non falsifiable things, where no observation would be capable of disproving it.
    For high velocities the Newton is wrong."

    Again and again you are describing not the Popper's absurd method. You are describing the constructive method: "by a test we can confirm Einstein Theory, but if sadly happens, that test refutes Einstein, then Einstein is not scientific in this area and conditions." And Newton is right in own area of applicability. Many theories have such area. Even Einstein is not applicable in Black Hole singularity. But that does not mean, that Einstein is wrong somehow. "Happy people do not fail, happy people just learn":
    Little Big Town - Happy People
     
    #1 questfortruth, Nov 30, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2018
  2. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,732
    Ratings:
    +1,849
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    Sorry, but that's not how the scientific method works. Try again.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +113
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    It works amazingly great:

    "The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality". LOL.
     
  4. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,732
    Ratings:
    +1,849
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    From a statistical prospective, the universe shouldn't exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    45,051
    Ratings:
    +13,808
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    The least that can be said of the OP is that it is very disconnected and distant from both reality and science.

    There is really not much to actually discuss there.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +113
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    It is because my article is not falsifiable?
     
  7. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +113
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
     
  8. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,456
    Ratings:
    +2,424
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Try again when you're not doing drugs?
     
  9. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    45,051
    Ratings:
    +13,808
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    I guess you can put it that way.

    Edited to add: a considerably big part of the difficulty here is that, beyond just lacking in awareness of science and in functional understanding of its basic outlines, your post is also lacking in clarity of message.

    What are you even calling Team Flat and Team Globe? It is not clear at all. Are they based in real world entities of some sort? If so, which would they be? How can anyone even know whether your understanding of those concepts resembles anyone else's?
     
    #9 LuisDantas, Nov 30, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    16,177
    Ratings:
    +4,880
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    And anyone who understands physics understands what that statement means...and it is not what's in the OP...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +113
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Just because something is very complicated, this thing is wrong? It is Occam's razor speaking in you.
    Team Flat are followers of Flat shape of planet, team Globe are followers of Globe (like sphere) shape of Earth.
     
  12. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    45,051
    Ratings:
    +13,808
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Are you prop├│sing guesswork as a epistemological strategy then? Or what?


    That did not help much.
     
Loading...