Fnord wrote:
It could not be any more clear; Non-Sequitur means that the two concepts - proven versus unproven - do not fit with each other. Equivocation means that you are trying to make them mean the same thing. Either something is or it is not. There is nothing between.
But you seemed to be making a jump here to conclude this was the case, after all, iamnotaparakeet admitted saying "but it is all conjectural anyway." before you got here.
Quote:
It would suggest that, however, it would mean so much more if I were to read of the success of a time-travel experiment in a vetted peer-review journal than it does to read a half-baked posting by a random pseudo-science freak or conspiracy theorist.
Ok, so that sounds better than saying that only when you travel back in time you would be convinced, as it seemed stated, in which case then it would be my fault for taking your approach so literal, which it seemed unconsistent to me.
Quote:
I've seen the lower half of the Apollo 11 LEM through a telescope, plus some of the larger pieces of junk that Armstrong & Co. left there. Their placement matches the video evidence sufficiently.
Well, if you saw that for yourself, that's good then, although seeing larger pieces of junk that they left on the moon, sounds strange, which I thought those were impossible to be seen in conventional telescopes.
Quote:
Another flat-Earther, eh? Well ... that explains a lot ...
lol, I do not believe the earth to be flat at all, nor I am a conspiracy theorist, I was making an example of why people believe the earth to be round and why they believe the moonwalking, and I can tell you that a lot of people believe that because of faith and because they are thought of that, never bother to question it, and well, of course there are also those conspiracy theory nuts.
Quote:
- People travelling south see the southern constellations rise higher above the southern horizon. I observed this myself when the ship I was stationed on crossed the equator on a southerly bearing.
- The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. This is evident without any special equipment; one need only look and the evidence is rght there.
Well, earth flat people seem to have explanations for that, which it is nonsense anyway, because they fail to provide evidence, not to mention to be unscientific.
Quote:
Some collegues and I also performed the Eratosthenes Experiment ourselves, albeit with a land-rover and a GPS. Eratosthenes (276 BCE - 194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent. Our results, using known scales of measurement, matched the 'official' value to within 0.001%.
Well, it is good that you have gain evidence by experiments yourself, in which would disprove my point, in asking why did you believe in it, without experimenting it, but you did, although it is a point for some that call themselves skeptics.
Quote:
In more simple terms; Skepticism is valid, while the validity of String Theory is still so much in doubt as to still be nerely an idea.
Yes, I agree that skepticism is valid, and I mean true skepticism, which demands evidence, I am skeptical as well, even though sometimes it may seem I would take some things with certainty, I don't. In fact, I give everything a certain amount of doubt, even reality itself, And the thing that I accept most is uncertainty, and things we know and take for granted, to be relative to our perceptions, I suppose that would seem to deviate a little from true skepticism and empiricism, however, I accept empirical evidence, as the
most likely to be factual for the moment. nevertheless, that doesn't exclude me for thinking of a possibility and make a hypothesis about a situation wich in this case is time travel, I recognize that there is a chance that might be totally impossible, but we are not certain of this, I would assume you agree with me on this.
Quote:
greenblue wrote:
We really can't say for certain, but we could explore the possibility, after all, this thread is about making a hypothetical scenario, I would assume that no one here is claiming time travel to be factual.
Good. You've established that much. My opinion of you and other WP members just improved.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean here.
Quote:
I have read of cyanide toxicity experiments in a vetted peer-review journal ("Journal of the American Medical Association"), and have performed similar experiments on cultured human tissue as part of my college biology courses, for which I received the highest possible grade - but then, so did most of the rest of the class, as it's an easy enough experiment to perform.
Well, that's good a thing, although what you stated about time travel that you yourself would have to travel in time in order to believe, would not have been literal, as you take sources as valid as well, without actually being there, but then, I can see that it was made in a form of an opinion. And some opinons, sometimes are not that well articulated or well taken then it become to be contradictive, in appereance sometimes.
Quote:
Now, are you finished trying to discredit me? Are you ready to provide any evidence that retrograde time travel is not only possible, but is real as well? Or are you having too much fun playing fantasy games?
well, I said in my previous post that I was not claiming time travel to be factual, I also said that it is also possible that time travel to be impossible. For the time being, I believe both assertions can be valid, as we have no evidence, we can make speculations, surely, speculations are not evidence and are not facts, just hypothesis and possibilities. So I share the same view as you on this, that there is no evidence for a yes, no evidence for no either (which in this case the explanations on causality to think of the impossibility doesn't mean evidence) to think of this in an absolute way. However I don't see how thinking of this being interesting, doing a hypothetical scenario of this to be a bad thing, as long as we are not claiming facts about this.
I think this might to related to an attitude towards this more than the belief or empirical acceptance about it, or am I wrong?
And this is an argument for the sake of argument, I don't see why this being to discredit you or to challenge you, I think I share most of your views and just was showing different ways to see this stuff, no need to take this personal.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Last edited by greenblue on 15 Aug 2008, 7:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
15 Aug 2008, 5:58 pm
