Flat Earth Theory?

[homeforsummer]

I really don't understand what you are so frustrated about. I am not uselessly quoting anything at all, I am using quotations to strengthen or explain my argument. If you look to the past in the God thread, many great arguers used the same approach, such as Tic Tach for example.

You're hardly using quotes constructively though. Everything is biased. The quote above was a philosopher's view on a scientific principle (and I've mentioned half a dozen times now about purging philosophy from a scientific discussion), and you've been known to use very openly creationist people to back up supposed "science". When using quotes to back up a point, it's generally more relevant if they're impartial.

As for explaining your arguments, it'd make for a much better discussion if you used your own words rather than everyone else's.

If you have to exclusively use someone else's quotes that you've found on the internet (and increasingly irritatingly, never provide a full source for, so it's impossible to tell when you're quoting out of context without searching for ten minutes) then you probably don't have the depth of understanding required to do justice to your points (i.e, you have opinions, that you're backing up with someone else's explanation).

With the greatest respect to Tic Tach, his method of posting wasn't the most conducive to constructive discussion, so his approach isn't the best method to follow to illustrate your own points.

 

[CMvan46]

Tank it's frustrating reading it. I completely agree with others that your quotes are more often than not completely biased and have little relevance to the point your making.

If your making a bigger claim and desperately feel the need to back it up then post us the link of the article or whatever you found. A lot of your quotes mean nothing without understanding the context in which it was said. If your wanting to learn than you have to be open minded and that means listening to all of us asking you to stop.


The idea that technology will one day proven the world is flat may be an interesting thought but it's not going to happen. There are a lot of ways to prove the world is round, although not perfectly round mind you. It's actually slightly flat on the north and south poles which makes gravity act slightly differently if you were to compare the north pole with a place on the equator because the equator is slightly farther away from the center of the earth.

 

[Sureboss]

What makes me more special to you than them?

Because posters are wanting to talk to you, wanting to have a debate with you and not the person you're quoting from.

 

[Grand Prix]

The intriguing thing about colours is that we only see what is being reflected or emitted from the object, not what it is absorbing. Or in the case of leaves, we only see the dominant colour being reflected, green, because it overwhelms the "natural" colour of the plant (usually a brown, orange, red or yellow of some sort). I'll let you ponder about that for a moment.

If the object is reflecting or emitting a perfect balance of the entire spectrum, we see it as "white." There's always a "whiter" white, though, it's impossible to determine what is "whitish" white because there's always a brighter white.

Our eyes see things in a very relativistic way, which they have to do in order to adapt to different conditions. The reality of colours does exist, I mean, they exist in the real universe, but through scientific understanding we have found that our eyes can be fooled very easily, and they don't see as well as previously thought. They are not a stable foundation we can use to understand the universe, we must use other, more scientific means - which we have.

It's just another example of life trying to understand the "real" universe from a very limited perspective. We do know for certain the earth is round-ish though.

 

[niky]

When it comes to the study of the natural world, I believe that nothing can be totally proven nor disproven. Let me explain by using a quote from Karl Popper:
"The old scientific idea of episteme - of absolutely demonstrable knowledge - has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it clear that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever."
I am nearly certain that the earth is not flat, but I am not entirely, and that doubt I suppose will remain forever.

"The Earth is not flat" is not a scientific statement in that context. It is not a hypothesis or a theorem. It is an observation of fact. Where things such as the Theory of Gravity (Newton) can be surpassed by newer theories like the Theory of General Relativity (funnily enough... many laypeople cite "The Law of Gravity" as an example against all other modern theories (*cough* Evolution *cough*)... when Newton's Law has been mathematically shown to be not completely accurate...), the answer to 1+1 will always be 2.

Would you also say that you are almost certain an inflated basketball is not flat?

 

[TankAss95]

"The Earth is not flat" is not a scientific statement in that context. It is not a hypothesis or a theorem. It is an observation of fact. Where things such as the Theory of Gravity (Newton) can be surpassed by newer theories like the Theory of General Relativity (funnily enough... many laypeople cite "The Law of Gravity" as an example against all other modern theories (*cough* Evolution *cough*)... when Newton's Law has been mathematically shown to be not completely accurate...), the answer to 1+1 will always be 2.

Would you also say that you are almost certain an inflated basketball is not flat?

When a person states that nothing can be treated as complete fact, he/she metaphorically shoots himself in the foot, as he has just made a statement that he says is complete fact!
To be quite honest I'm not sure what I'm even saying anymore. I seem to be running around, attempting to make the flaws in my argument somehow justified, only to make even more flaws. The circle goes around and around failing to give my views purpose in discussion that I increasingly thirst for. That being said, I'm not sure I understood my own views properly in the first place.

You can close this thread now if you want as it no longer serves any real purpose.

 

[Small_Fryz]

 

[Gdog96]

I don't really mind the fact that they think it's flat, but it annoys me that on their forum they present everything as fact when they don't actually have any decent evidence to back it up.

 

[HKS racer]

I don't really mind the fact that they think it's flat, but it annoys me that on their forum they present everything as fact when they don't actually have any decent evidence to back it up.

The only fact here is: people talking and reading crap because of some random reasons. : )

I tell you a new theory: the Earth isn't flat nor round, the Earth is a triange, a very nice triangle with a little hairy strip in the middle and a nice pink cave on the south.

 

[Rich S]

Well the video actually makes sense when one considers the earth bulges at the equator (I think. ). Not totally round so there's reason to speculate for just a moment.

 

[Zupplu]

Wtf...... I dont understand any of you lol