Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-17 08:12:13
Reaction Score: 5
I disagree. I was not trying to bait you into an argument. There is a misunderstanding here, I think.
Just because something is not "scientific" doesn't mean it doesn't have value. However, throwing the word science out there doesn't mean something is science. Most of what is described as science these days is mathematical modeling and correlation which do not prove cause. Confusing these terms may only be accidental but the implication is throwing science in front of something implies empirical fact where there may not be any. We see this in defense of the heliocentric model routinely. If we are going to cite science (natural science), then we are going to adhere to the scientific method OR we're going to admit what we're doing is not an experiment that will prove or disprove the cause of an effect but rather a study where we are likely presuming some variables. Do you think a mathematician could design a working universe with the Earth's radius doubled or any number you'd like? I do. And that just makes it conceivable, it doesn't prove anything.
That said, I don't feel it's pointless to have the discussion, I mean, most of what is researched on this forum cannot be proven because the past is gone to never return, but there can be little puzzle pieces gained along the way. I guess though I was mostly taken by your assertiveness on the subject and harsh dismissal of flat earth proponents, while citing an elements that seem as unprovable and using similar language to globe propaganda. I also still firmly disagree with the assertion of the geometry of the sky precluding a flat earth and would still be interested in knowing why my thought exercise can't be correct. The sky above a couple hundred thousand feet is a complete mystery to me and I don't see how we can authoritatively say we know how we would perceive it from different locations unless we are presuming a tangible nature of the celestial objects, which I will not take as a given. Lots of stories about the sky out there... it's humanity's oldest pastime, really. Well, telling stories in general probably, sky stories are the number one subgenre!
What is science and who makes that decision?
They call Bill Nye the science guy, but he's just an actor who works for Disney and he only has a basic 4 year degree in general science. He isn't a scientist by any means. He's a very good actor who plays the role of a scientist. But he's THE science guy. I certainly hope he doesn't make the rules as he's quite content to spread lies to children.
So what is the difference between science and pseudoscience? What are the criteria and who gets to make that call?
Many of Einstein's theories are now seriously being questioned (as they were back in his day but were shut down by TPTB). Much of what he speculated is looking false in many scientific circles. Some predict they will all fall including the famous E=MC2 equation. If that happens does Einstein become a pseudoscientist?
What if it turns out that Cyrus Teed was correct, will he still be considered a pseudoscientist even though his experiment was correct?
After hundreds of years of speculation and experimentation by some of the world's greatest scientific minds, there is still no proof of gravity. Yet we have an equation, and claim it to exist without any legitimate evidence. The general nature of science is not a belief system, yet the belief in gravity absolutely is there and it only exists to support the heliocentric model of the solar system. Without gravity the whole house of cards falls down. Pun fully intended. This means the heliocentric model is based on belief. It has no backbone of it's own. Science still can't explain why Newton's apple bonked him in the head. It obviously hasn't knocked any sense into them.
Eventually, nearly everything in science turns over into something new. There are very few hard and fast laws. And they may not even be correct. Just like gravity.
So how does science earn credibility with contradictions like this? They don't with me.
Basically, I see little difference between science and pseudoscience. They are just names people give others because they like or dislike their ideas and/or education. Some scientists suck at their jobs. Barely graduated college. But they're still scientists. And even more are on the take selling lies to children for that nice fat paycheck. I had classes from quite few of those types in my college days.
What I care about is what leads me to the truth, whatever that turns out to be.
The difference lies in the experiment, how well it is executed, and of course it's validity. Sometimes experiments turn up unexpected evidence that changes the way we think. They are just as valid as experiments that hit their target. Teed may have been a religious nut job, but his experiments were valid. They were performed under strict rules, the measurements and equations verified by third party onlookers. But no one ever even attempted to repeat them. They discredited Teed instead, which is the logical fallacy called Ad hominem, or attacking the man.
Science is chock full of these hypocrisies.
The experiments at the Tamrack mines were absolutely scientific by your definition. They were performed by a professor and were under the authority of the the Michigan College of Mining. So were the ones in France. Please conduct some research before you say it was unscientific.
When I answer peoples questions or lay out an idea, I can't tell them everything and expect them to understand. You have to take the ball and run with it. That is how learning works. I plant the seed and you make it grow in your own mind. You have to go out and find your own fertilizer.
Like I said before, I'm happy to discuss this with you and anyone else who is genuinely interested. But I have been studying this for twenty five years or so. I've seen tons of stuff that can no longer be found on the internet. Many books read. Many books lost. Lot's of scientific papers read, and not just the abstract. Countless hours looking for evidence first against and then for the idea. Many years of thought experiments and physical experiments as well.
No, I am not, nor do I consider myself the supreme authority on this subject, but I've yet to find anyone who has studied it anywhere near as much as I have. I certainly hope to find someone who has studied it well someday, but I'm not holding my breath. I've been getting grief over this for a very long time. Lost many friends and the respect of family members. Trolled by far more than I could ever count. So at my advanced age, I am losing patience with people who just want to debate and argue. I just want to share what I've learned, and hopefully some bright new minds will be able to shine new light on the subject beyond what I can offer. Pick up where I will be leaving off. I still have far more to learn than days in front of me. So I am eager to hear more evidence, including that of the flat earth theory. I still look for evidence to disprove the Concave earth theory as well. I am after the truth. I'm not trying to just push an idea on others.
If you want to learn, I'll tell you what I know. I'll offer leads if I can. But it's up to you to discover it for yourself. If you prefer to just shoot the idea down, or argue, then I have no time for you. And I am not going to spoon feed anyone. They have to do the work too.
