PottyLisa Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 2 hours ago, King Lear said: What is PottyLisa going on about? This: No, not that. I'm referring to Paul claiming that people don't know who he is. The only person going on about thing is Paul. It's that simple really. How did you even come to the conclusion I was talking about Tame Elf? Very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Lear Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Nah I wasn't thinking about TE, rather where the image is found which relates to your original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Chinahand said: I am going to waste 20 minutes of my life discussing this as I think it may be worthwhile. Firstly the quote PGW put up clearly isn't anonymous, it is sourced in detail. Now I will acknowledge that PGW does later admit that when he says it's anonymous, he means he doesn't know it is Orwell, and that the source is irrelevant, it is the reasoning put forward which is important. I will agree with PGW on that. But need he have claimed that he doesn't know the source is Orwell. I am willing to state that these are the words written by Orwell in 1946 and published in the Tribune on the date quoted. Can I provide logical proof of this. Of course not. Such a demand is unreasonable and illogical in itself - proof only exists (and only to a limited extent - go and read Godel) in pure mathematics where axioms are defined with a rigour which is impossible to replicate in the real world. The evidence-based sciences (and history and motorcycle maintenance are evidence based applications of reason and logic to better understand the world) do not and cannot expect to supply proof. They use evidence to make useful statements about the world. So how can we bring evidence to bear on Orwell's writings. Well, we can go to sources. In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950 (Collected Essays, Journalism & Letters, Vol. 4) was first published in 1968. If you use a friendly search engine you can (illegally, but usefully) find a pdf of it on line here and on PFD page 280 printed page 259 you will find an essay As I Please from which PGW's quote came. Do read it, it provides a reasonable justification as to why it is reasonable to accept the earth is a sphere. Is one source enough? How likely is it that this is fake? How unreasonable would you have to be to insist this isn't convincing evidence. So ... you investigate further. George Orwell The Collected Non-Fiction was published by Penguin in March 2017. Google books has a searchable version of it, as does Amazon and if you type in "Oval Earth man" into the search you will find the same story. Is this "proof" - no, of course not, Orwell might not have written the story, nicking it from some drunk in the pub, it could be a vast conspiracy etc etc etc. We've been there done that 1000 times in this thread. But when weighing the evidence is it reasonable to conclude the Orwell wrote these words? Clearly it is. PGW could have done a bit of work, actually investigated, and easily discovered this evidence. He didn't. He claims this thread is meant to be about science and accuses others of being religious fanatics. Ah, the irony. Science takes work. It is hard, but its benefits accrue to all of us - if we accept them. The efforts of others allow us labour saving devices, leisure and entertainment and a deeper understanding of the universe than religions can ever give us. How do we know the earth is a globe? Because with patience we can measure it. We can measure the change in the dip of the horizon as our elevation changes. How sun-rise, sun-sets and noons change as we move North and South. How the stars rotate clockwise about Polaris in the Northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise close to the Southern Cross in the Southern; and change their position in regular ways as we move about the earth. Hence allowing us to use solar or stellar observations and spherical mathematics to navigate successfully about the world. We can also use mathematical-mechanics to explain how a Foucault's Pendulum rotates at different rates at different latitudes You could do all these things as a lonely isolated individual and come to a reasonable conclusion about the shape of the earth. Or you could be lazy and pretend you know what science is while not doing it, and refusing to accept the evidence presented by those who have. Who those people are doesn't matter - there is the evidence they have collected and presented to mankind over literally millennia. That accumulation of knowledge contained much much error, but overtime the error in the measurements reduced until now we can now where we are on this sphere of ours to an accuracy of millimetres. Closing your eyes to that evidence and the predictive ability this knowledge has given us isn't scientific. It is blinkered, deliberate obscurantism. PGW doesn't engage with science, isn't reasonable, or evidence based, but he is sadly right that there isn't a lot of science in this thread. People, stick to the issue and not the ad hominen - what the evidence is, whether that evidence is of good enough standard to be useable (ie it definitely doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough) and whether it is reasonable to reject the conclusions of that evidence. PGW didn't need to claim ignorance about Orwell's authorship. He could have used his abilities to source the quote. It is very typical of him not to have bothered. When is it reasonable to accept or reject evidence. That is a scientific question, and one PGW seems very unwilling to discuss. Here's a simple case. PGW - are you willing to agree Orwell is the source for the quote you posted? You get yourrttfgggrself in some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Not very helpful or even comprehensible, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Is it time to leave Paul to think his thoughts and ponder for himself proofs of the Earth's shape yet? No progress seems to have been made in 239 pages, and it is all really just fulfilling the desire of a few people for attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, PottyLisa said: China has offered you both proof and ways of gaining proof. I'm not nearly as eloquent as him so if you won't listen to him, you're definately not going to listen to me. I think people have gone past the point of trying to seriously engage with you now Paul, what with all the name calling and cryptic insults. You've even been pretty condescending to China and he has been measured and informative throughout this thread. What's wrong with you. He has gone out of his way to add to this topic and you've just taken the piss. I've come to the conclusion based on the consistent evidence presented in this thread that you're just plain nasty. A wrongun who thinks he's being a little more clever than he actually is. You twist words and home in on details of no significance to steer the conversation and get out of corners. It's obvious to all. "I'm not nearly as eloquent as him" ...that's obvious from how you behave on here. "I think people have gone past the point of trying to seriously engage with you now Paul"........i'll just reiterate, the thread was started by gerry and he never mentioned my name in the op. this is a scientific discussion about the shape and size of the earth. as you well know by now . also, you actually engaged in conversation with me first, and can't seem to ever stop, even though it makes you dribble, for some reason. that's all on you. "you're definately not going to listen to me.".....i always reply to you, even if your rude, which is most of the time. "what with all the name calling and cryptic insults" ................who the donald duck would need advice about posting from you! the ultimate potty mouth, quick foam they call you don't they! "What's wrong with you"......the cry from the cult right there lisa! "oh paul why don't you just believe what i do, it will be all lovely and comfey" ........"yeah but what about the scientific method lisa" ....."who cares paul china said it's right and he's more cleverer" i think i'm ok thanks all the same lease. "You've even been pretty condescending to China"........is that against the law? please provide proof of your claim or take it back and apologise like a real potty mouth would and should. you complete mitty! wtf is this agony aunt hour? what on earth has come over you lisa? someone challenged your long held faith based religious beliefs or somethin? "China has offered you both proof and ways of gaining proof".......good so that means you can use one of his to provide for us all to examine, like i have asked you and many others on numerous occasions. but you are simply unable to do so. astounding isn't it. i make my own assessments of how people behave lisa, wouldn't need advice from a foamer like you about it would i love. have you forgotten which thread you are in? is there a paul wright life stories thread you were meant to post in? gerry asked what you think about flat earth. you know. the subject, topic if you like. do keep up. "you've just taken the piss."......proving that you have not read this thread, i have made it clear time and time again exactly what brings me here. if you bothered to do some simple reading you would know that. but you are clearly too lazy, or indoctrinated to do so. "I've come to the conclusion"...........i highly doubt you have. if i were a betting man i'd put sausages on it that you actually haven't read a quarter of this thread content, and it's connected info, links citations etc etc. you are a complete noob and near fantasist at this point, fumbling in the dark, rather than actually just taking the time to get to know even the most basic principles of your religious belief in other people's theories about big balls. sad really "who thinks he's".....you don't have the first idea what i think unless i tell you wally mouth! x "It's obvious to all."..ha ha yeah just like the sinning globe you ballieve in hey lisa, and if everyone else believes it, that'll do you hey? who the donald duck needs the scientific method anyway! right! haha you ultra potty mitty x x x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Chinahand said: I am going to waste 20 minutes of my life discussing this as I think it may be worthwhile. Firstly the quote PGW put up clearly isn't anonymous, it is sourced in detail. Now I will acknowledge that PGW does later admit that when he says it's anonymous, he means he doesn't know it is Orwell, and that the source is irrelevant, it is the reasoning put forward which is important. I will agree with PGW on that. But need he have claimed that he doesn't know the source is Orwell. I am willing to state that these are the words written by Orwell in 1946 and published in the Tribune on the date quoted. Can I provide logical proof of this. Of course not. Such a demand is unreasonable and illogical in itself - proof only exists (and only to a limited extent - go and read Godel) in pure mathematics where axioms are defined with a rigour which is impossible to replicate in the real world. The evidence-based sciences (and history and motorcycle maintenance are evidence based applications of reason and logic to better understand the world) do not and cannot expect to supply proof. They use evidence to make useful statements about the world. So how can we bring evidence to bear on Orwell's writings. Well, we can go to sources. In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950 (Collected Essays, Journalism & Letters, Vol. 4) was first published in 1968. If you use a friendly search engine you can (illegally, but usefully) find a pdf of it on line here and on PFD page 280 printed page 259 you will find an essay As I Please from which PGW's quote came. Do read it, it provides a reasonable justification as to why it is reasonable to accept the earth is a sphere. Is one source enough? How likely is it that this is fake? How unreasonable would you have to be to insist this isn't convincing evidence. So ... you investigate further. George Orwell The Collected Non-Fiction was published by Penguin in March 2017. Google books has a searchable version of it, as does Amazon and if you type in "Oval Earth man" into the search you will find the same story. Is this "proof" - no, of course not, Orwell might not have written the story, nicking it from some drunk in the pub, it could be a vast conspiracy etc etc etc. We've been there done that 1000 times in this thread. But when weighing the evidence is it reasonable to conclude the Orwell wrote these words? Clearly it is. PGW could have done a bit of work, actually investigated, and easily discovered this evidence. He didn't. He claims this thread is meant to be about science and accuses others of being religious fanatics. Ah, the irony. Science takes work. It is hard, but its benefits accrue to all of us - if we accept them. The efforts of others allow us labour saving devices, leisure and entertainment and a deeper understanding of the universe than religions can ever give us. How do we know the earth is a globe? Because with patience we can measure it. We can measure the change in the dip of the horizon as our elevation changes. How sun-rise, sun-sets and noons change as we move North and South. How the stars rotate clockwise about Polaris in the Northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise close to the Southern Cross in the Southern; and change their position in regular ways as we move about the earth. Hence allowing us to use solar or stellar observations and spherical mathematics to navigate successfully about the world. We can also use mathematical-mechanics to explain how a Foucault's Pendulum rotates at different rates at different latitudes You could do all these things as a lonely isolated individual and come to a reasonable conclusion about the shape of the earth. Or you could be lazy and pretend you know what science is while not doing it, and refusing to accept the evidence presented by those who have. Who those people are doesn't matter - there is the evidence they have collected and presented to mankind over literally millennia. That accumulation of knowledge contained much much error, but overtime the error in the measurements reduced until now we can now where we are on this sphere of ours to an accuracy of millimetres. Closing your eyes to that evidence and the predictive ability this knowledge has given us isn't scientific. It is blinkered, deliberate obscurantism. PGW doesn't engage with science, isn't reasonable, or evidence based, but he is sadly right that there isn't a lot of science in this thread. People, stick to the issue and not the ad hominen - what the evidence is, whether that evidence is of good enough standard to be useable (ie it definitely doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough) and whether it is reasonable to reject the conclusions of that evidence. PGW didn't need to claim ignorance about Orwell's authorship. He could have used his abilities to source the quote. It is very typical of him not to have bothered. When is it reasonable to accept or reject evidence. That is a scientific question, and one PGW seems very unwilling to discuss. Here's a simple case. PGW - are you willing to agree Orwell is the source for the quote you posted? you do get yourself in some terrible assumptive tangles china! i'll reply in full later. i appreciate that you can consider the alternative position so well and point it out for people. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, quilp said: Great post China. Epic, epistemic-contextualism... https://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160 do you know any flat earthers quilp? if so, have you discussed the topic with any of them? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, King Lear said: What is PottyLisa going on about? This: only potty knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Neil Down said: Do you suffer with Bipolar? Its the only possible explanation for your irrational behaviour and the need to insult with every reply the same could be asked of you wally, didn't you mention something about ignore? oh that's right you did but you are a fantasist feeding your fetish in the flat earth thread, so here you are again engaging with me, rather than the subject matter. interesting pattern developing. the stinking enigma may be on to something with that post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Neil Down said: You do realise that outing people on here is frowned upon hence the initials to give you a clue that we know who you are... no i need advice from walters like you about it, obviously. you should have kept that clue for yourself nelly, seems as you haven't got one about me. i'm sure you know all kinds of people like ant n dec and jimmy saville and holly willyschofield and george best. the bit that makes you a fantasist, apart from following anonymous strangers around on the web, is the bit where you think you know who they are! to know someone is an intimate thing nelly. maybe you've never done it so this is how you feed that fantasy. that's up to you. but pretending to know someone doesn't mean you do. knowing them does. you total and utter mitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 55 minutes ago, King Lear said: Nah I wasn't thinking about TE, rather where the image is found which relates to your original post. 47 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Not very helpful or even comprehensible, sorry china not sure what happened there? my post reply is above this now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Neil Down said: don't be so harsh on yeself neil, just don't try an force ye religion on others. fair's fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 44 minutes ago, guzzi said: Is it time to leave Paul to think his thoughts and ponder for himself proofs of the Earth's shape yet? No progress seems to have been made in 239 pages, and it is all really just fulfilling the desire of a few people for attention. get yeself a ticket fella, you might learn a bit about ye own beliefs https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk/#tickets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.