|
Post by David on Jun 10, 2017 11:56:23 GMT
You said that DET beats RET because it has fewer assumptions and has not been proven to be false.
However your whole concept is reliant upon assuming space travel is a conspiracy.
That's a huge assumption to make and one which you try to brush over in your model.
Beyond that, the men who have travelled to space have all reported seeing a spherical earth, no one has reported a dual disc.
Further than that all satellite images display a spherical earth, none display a dual disc.
The observations of these people cannot be explained by DET and the only way you cannot attempt to explain them to these people is by accusing these people of lying, but since these people have 100% certainty they aren't lying the only other answer is that DET is false.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 10, 2017 21:21:18 GMT
It is a conclusion, not an assumption. The fact of space travel's impossibility is reached by conclusions of the model; it follows that such attempts are faked. The default state is not assuming that such space travel indeed happened. To examine it scientifically one must consider both perspectives; that it was real, and that it was faked. Each are possible. Perhaps not equally likely, from the REer perspective, but that does not make it any less reasonable a conclusion for a non-RE model.
How are you sure that "these people have 100% certainty they aren't lying?"
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 11, 2017 5:44:47 GMT
It is a conclusion, not an assumption. The fact of space travel's impossibility is reached by conclusions of the model; it follows that such attempts are faked. The default state is not assuming that such space travel indeed happened. To examine it scientifically one must consider both perspectives; that it was real, and that it was faked. Each are possible. Perhaps not equally likely, from the REer perspective, but that does not make it any less reasonable a conclusion for a non-RE model. How are you sure that "these people have 100% certainty they aren't lying?" I don't have to be 100% sure. But the people involved will be 100% sure thus are able to prove your model wrong by observation and experimentation.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 11, 2017 9:47:16 GMT
How do you know that they are 100% sure, as I asked before? Without that, your statement is just "These people went to the moon, therefore these people went to the moon." You are assuming their accuracy rather than proving it; it's a circular argument. You are assuming that it was not faked, to justify the claim it was not faked, but until you can demonstrate that they are indeed 100% sure, this remains a scientifically acceptable position.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 11, 2017 10:19:47 GMT
How do you know that they are 100% sure, as I asked before? Without that, your statement is just "These people went to the moon, therefore these people went to the moon." You are assuming their accuracy rather than proving it; it's a circular argument. You are assuming that it was not faked, to justify the claim it was not faked, but until you can demonstrate that they are indeed 100% sure, this remains a scientifically acceptable position. No I don't have to be sure. What I am saying is they will know from their own observations that your model cannot be accurate. I don't have to justify any claims about being the legitimacy of space travel. You are giving two options, either space travel is a lie or your model does not work. This is the choice you're left with based on your assumption. For the people in question they do not need an assumption as they have actual first hand experience and observation. So where you are working on an assumption, they will not be. I hope you see the difference there. Whether or not you choose to believe their version of events has no impact whatsoever on the accuracy of those events. So from their perspective they can 100% disprove your model based on observation.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 11, 2017 16:06:26 GMT
You are claiming "they will know from their own observations that your model cannot be accurate." I am asking you to justify this claim. This has nothing to do with what I choose to believe, this is entirely based on your claim. As I said previously, the impossibility of space travel is a conclusion of the model. The only assumption here is that, to quote you again, "they can 100% disprove your model based on observation." To blindly accept another's words is not scientific, if I were to claim to have built a teleporter and seen the world from above and confirmed that it was flat, would you make the same argument, that my 'actual first hand experience and observation' trumps RE claims?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 11, 2017 18:09:01 GMT
Yes your observation would be equally as valid.
Is that something you have observed?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 11, 2017 18:42:02 GMT
It is something I could claim to have observed, the same way they claim to. I agree with 'equally valid,' it is ultimately just a claim, but what matters here is how such a claim ought to be treated. You did not answer my question: if I made such a claim, would you make the same argument to RE scientists who disagreed? If I made such a claim, would you insist I be taken seriously and that said claim trumps RE science, because I would know it for false?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 11, 2017 19:48:10 GMT
It is something I could claim to have observed, the same way they claim to. I agree with 'equally valid,' it is ultimately just a claim, but what matters here is how such a claim ought to be treated. You did not answer my question: if I made such a claim, would you make the same argument to RE scientists who disagreed? If I made such a claim, would you insist I be taken seriously and that said claim trumps RE science, because I would know it for false? Yes of course I would, and at that point you would have 100% certainty as to the truth of your claims and as to whether or not the earth was indeed a dual disk. That's exactly my point, the astronauts have 100% knowledge on this matter where as you don't. They no that either A) the world is a sphere in which case your model is disproven. Or B) space travel never happened in which case your model is no disproven. Either way the knowledge exists within those people and knowledge is knowledge no matter where it exists. If an astronaut ever was interested enough they could just post here and say they know the earth is a sphere because they witnessed it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 11, 2017 20:48:45 GMT
Just because someone says something does not make it true. An astronaut could come post here, just like someone who had a NDE and claimed to have God show them the world is flat could pop by. Like you say, either: A) DET is wrong and space travel is possible and the people in question are truthful, or B) DET is correct and the people in question lied.
We need more than someone's word. Knowledge is knowledge no matter where it exists, but science has to be universally accessible. Something hidden away in someone's mind is Schrodinger's cat; it could be one thing, it could be the other. Those people either absolutely know the world is round, or absolutely know that space travel is faked. Why should I assume one possibility over the other?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 11, 2017 21:40:40 GMT
You don't have to assume anything.
What I'm saying is their knowledge is complete and yours isn't.
They can dismiss your model with verifiable reasons, you can't.
They can say "I know the earth is a sphere because I've seen it from space"
Whereas you can only say "I don't believe you've been to space"
I've never been to China, but I can assume it's there because other people have witnessed it and if I wanted to I could go there myself.
If you had such conviction you could train as an astronaut or space engineer, get a job at NASA or any countries space programme and be in a position of knowledge yourself.
Obviously you won't do that, but people out there have done that and have observed a spherical earth.
Your assumption they're lying, or my assumption they're not is neither here nor there. It has zero impact on the truth of the matter. Our beliefs can not alter historical events.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 11, 2017 22:22:18 GMT
To add further, you define evidence as an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
So people have observed a spherical earth which is in line with RET and falsifies DET.
That's your definition.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 11, 2017 22:50:46 GMT
People can say a lot of things. What matters isn't what they say, it's what they know. Why does it mean anything that they can say they saw a round Earth from space if they're lying? No, our beliefs have no impact on the truth of the matter. However, the truth of the matter cannot be ascertained by just listening to a couple of lines given that humans are entirely capable of dishonesty. How is it you know that this is a historical event? I could just as easily saying the lie is the historical event, and thus people have observed that space travel is impossible. People have not observed a round Earth. You are claiming they have, but a claim without evidence can be dismissed, no assumption required. "They said so," is not evidence.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 12, 2017 5:06:31 GMT
People can say a lot of things. What matters isn't what they say, it's what they know. Why does it mean anything that they can say they saw a round Earth from space if they're lying? No, our beliefs have no impact on the truth of the matter. However, the truth of the matter cannot be ascertained by just listening to a couple of lines given that humans are entirely capable of dishonesty. How is it you know that this is a historical event? I could just as easily saying the lie is the historical event, and thus people have observed that space travel is impossible. People have not observed a round Earth. You are claiming they have, but a claim without evidence can be dismissed, no assumption required. "They said so," is not evidence. You said evidence is observation in line with a theory. It isn't just one person who's observed a round earth, it's every one whose ever been to space or any picture ever recorded. For your model to work you must assume that it is all a lie, but that is only an assumption and changes not what happened. There is no observable evidence backing up your model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 12, 2017 12:54:34 GMT
Why are you assuming they did indeed go to space and observe a round Earth? I am not assuming anything, I am concluding that they did not go to space, and you haven't given me any reason to think otherwise. You're just saying that they did; that is the only assumption here. Observations of reality are in line with the DE model, the amount of observational evidence for DET is huge.
|
|