You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Landing on the moon
- Thread starter BlueMoonie
- Start date
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
buzzer1 said:ElanJo said:So your evidence is the views of 1 person, whose views are based on shamanic creation stories. That makes your beliefs no more valid than the person who believes in the views of a Priest or Pat Robertson. If that is all you have you actually don't have any evidence at all.
You're actually right about truth being the authority not authority being the truth - the ones here arguing that if 1000 scientists say X and 1 scientist says Y then X is true/should be believed are simply wrong (nearly every great scientist has been the 1). However, you completely go back on your own advice ("The truth should be the Authority, not authority being the truth") when you cite Mutwa as evidence.
Come on Elan, youve already agreed with what i am driving at, ie truth authority etc, and the 1 is more often than not,indeed right.
The 1 is not more often than not right. The point is that the 1 should not automatically be discounted just because he's in the minority. That is not the same as the minority nearly always being right. The important part here is how we go about finding out what is true. We have to look at the hard data - the evidence - to do that. Words, whoever they come from, are irrelevant if there is no evidence behind them. If there is evidence behind them then we can look at the evidence and see if the speaker has drawn a rational conclusion.
I'm sorry mate but Im not going to give you a free pass, with regards to aliens seeding the world and the "evidence" being Credo Mutwa's stories (that's all they are until there is evidence to back up his claims), just because you have said something correct. If you actually followed your own (correct) advice then that'd be a different matter but you don't.
ElanJo said:buzzer1 said:Come on Elan, youve already agreed with what i am driving at, ie truth authority etc, and the 1 is more often than not,indeed right.
The 1 is not more often than not right. The point is that the 1 should not automatically be discounted just because he's in the minority. That is not the same as the minority nearly always being right. The important part here is how we go about finding out what is true. We have to look at the hard data - the evidence - to do that. Words, whoever they come from, are irrelevant if there is no evidence behind them. If there is evidence behind them then we can look at the evidence and see if the speaker has drawn a rational conclusion.
I'm sorry mate but Im not going to give you a free pass, with regards to aliens seeding the world and the "evidence" being Credo Mutwa's stories (that's all they are until there is evidence to back up his claims), just because you have said something correct. If you actually followed your own (correct) advice then that'd be a different matter but you don't.
Sorry, my mistake, i meant the 1 is not to be discounted. How don't i follow my correct advice?. And there is only a few remaining Credo's of this world knocking about these days so evidence and knowledge is at a premium, you know this. I believe in what he is saying mate, thats all there is to it, and just for good measure, Icke is the man.
BulgarianPride
Well-Known Member
ElanJo said:buzzer1 said:I will checkout any claim for myself before i go with it.
The seeding bit, well i have posted a link many times and it's by Credo Mutwa, the Reptillian Agenda, a guy that you said you have checked out.
.
So your evidence is the views of 1 person, whose views are based on shamanic creation stories. That makes your beliefs no more valid than the person who believes in the views of a Priest or Pat Robertson. If that is all you have you actually don't have any evidence at all.
You're actually right about truth being the authority not authority being the truth - the ones here arguing that if 1000 scientists say X and 1 scientist says Y then X is true/should be believed are simply wrong (nearly every great scientist has been the 1)...it's all about the evidence. However, you completely go back on your own advice ("The truth should be the Authority, not authority being the truth") when you cite Mutwa as evidence.
Let me clear something up. When it comes down to proven experiments and not theoretical physics the 1000 are always right. So you are saying 1000 scientist repeat the experiment 1000 times and get relatively the same results and this 1 guy repeats the same experiment and get a result that is outrageous then he is a great scientist? The only reason we don't remember the ones that were wrong ( there are thousands of them) is because there was no reason to learn about them.
You say it all about the evidence but most of the great theories are based on maths alone, with no physical evidence ( at the time they were made). Thats a proper theory, assuming the maths is correct!
BulgarianPride said:ElanJo said:So your evidence is the views of 1 person, whose views are based on shamanic creation stories. That makes your beliefs no more valid than the person who believes in the views of a Priest or Pat Robertson. If that is all you have you actually don't have any evidence at all.
You're actually right about truth being the authority not authority being the truth - the ones here arguing that if 1000 scientists say X and 1 scientist says Y then X is true/should be believed are simply wrong (nearly every great scientist has been the 1)...it's all about the evidence. However, you completely go back on your own advice ("The truth should be the Authority, not authority being the truth") when you cite Mutwa as evidence.
Let me clear something up. When it comes down to proven experiments and not theoretical physics the 1000 are always right. So you are saying 1000 scientist repeat the experiment 1000 times and get relatively the same results and this 1 guy repeats the same experiment and get a result that is outrageous then he is a great scientist? The only reason we don't remember the ones that were wrong ( there are thousands of them) is because there was no reason to learn about them.
Just been reading this thread, this was what I was getting at with the 1000 and 1 analogy.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
No way is this thread still going.
I already told you that Apollo 11 did not go to the moon.
What more do you want; proof?
I already told you that Apollo 11 did not go to the moon.
What more do you want; proof?
BulgarianPride said:ElanJo said:So your evidence is the views of 1 person, whose views are based on shamanic creation stories. That makes your beliefs no more valid than the person who believes in the views of a Priest or Pat Robertson. If that is all you have you actually don't have any evidence at all.
You're actually right about truth being the authority not authority being the truth - the ones here arguing that if 1000 scientists say X and 1 scientist says Y then X is true/should be believed are simply wrong (nearly every great scientist has been the 1)...it's all about the evidence. However, you completely go back on your own advice ("The truth should be the Authority, not authority being the truth") when you cite Mutwa as evidence.
Let me clear something up. When it comes down to proven experiments and not theoretical physics the 1000 are always right. So you are saying 1000 scientist repeat the experiment 1000 times and get relatively the same results and this 1 guy repeats the same experiment and get a result that is outrageous then he is a great scientist? The only reason we don't remember the ones that were wrong ( there are thousands of them) is because there was no reason to learn about them.
You say it all about the evidence but most of the great theories are based on maths alone, with no physical evidence ( at the time they were made). Thats a proper theory, assuming the maths is correct!
Evidence gets destroyed, you agree? and if they want to supress the truth then they can, Credo being the obvious one here. And how the hell do you get to the "if one guy repeats the same experiment....", nobody says in this case that Credo is a scientist, he's far more important in my opinion. No Scientist has even heard the word Chitauri never mind try and tell the like of Credo how insignificant his memories/findings are, its laughable at best imo.
PS, sorry B.Pride, i know your not saying Credo is a scientist, i misread your post, i still stand by what i say though.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lzyXKbeg9s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lzyXKbeg9s</a>
-- Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:38 pm --
nashark said:No way is this thread still going.
I already told you that Apollo 11 did not go to the moon.
What more do you want; proof?
Yes, Cheese.
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
buzzer1 said:ElanJo said:The 1 is not more often than not right. The point is that the 1 should not automatically be discounted just because he's in the minority. That is not the same as the minority nearly always being right. The important part here is how we go about finding out what is true. We have to look at the hard data - the evidence - to do that. Words, whoever they come from, are irrelevant if there is no evidence behind them. If there is evidence behind them then we can look at the evidence and see if the speaker has drawn a rational conclusion.
I'm sorry mate but Im not going to give you a free pass, with regards to aliens seeding the world and the "evidence" being Credo Mutwa's stories (that's all they are until there is evidence to back up his claims), just because you have said something correct. If you actually followed your own (correct) advice then that'd be a different matter but you don't.
Sorry, my mistake, i meant the 1 is not to be discounted. How don't i follow my correct advice?. And there is only a few remaining Credo's of this world knocking about these days so evidence and knowledge is at a premium, you know this. I believe in what he is saying mate, thats all there is to it, and just for good measure, Icke is the man.
You don't follow your own advice because you accept Credo Mutwa's word as truth. You make him the authority of what is true instead of dealing with evidence and data. You take his word over the 150 years worth of data obtained from scientific biological study.
Maintainin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 7,295
Fuck am i readin 18 pages on mooners so i'l basicly juss contribute this to said thread anyways ;)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrNL_Pc-U4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrNL_Pc-U4[/youtube]
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
BulgarianPride said:ElanJo said:So your evidence is the views of 1 person, whose views are based on shamanic creation stories. That makes your beliefs no more valid than the person who believes in the views of a Priest or Pat Robertson. If that is all you have you actually don't have any evidence at all.
You're actually right about truth being the authority not authority being the truth - the ones here arguing that if 1000 scientists say X and 1 scientist says Y then X is true/should be believed are simply wrong (nearly every great scientist has been the 1)...it's all about the evidence. However, you completely go back on your own advice ("The truth should be the Authority, not authority being the truth") when you cite Mutwa as evidence.
Let me clear something up. When it comes down to proven experiments and not theoretical physics the 1000 are always right. So you are saying 1000 scientist repeat the experiment 1000 times and get relatively the same results and this 1 guy repeats the same experiment and get a result that is outrageous then he is a great scientist? The only reason we don't remember the ones that were wrong ( there are thousands of them) is because there was no reason to learn about them.
You say it all about the evidence but most of the great theories are based on maths alone, with no physical evidence ( at the time they were made). Thats a proper theory, assuming the maths is correct!
No. Obviously.
I said nearly every great scientist has been the "1", not that every "1" has been a great scientist.
As for mathematical theories, they need to be based on facts and then, yes, have the right equations, and, if possible, be confirmed by predictions/observations (a la Einstein), which fall under the umbrella of evidence. Either way it's not based on majority opinion, as Buzzer seems to think (a thought that a couple of replies to him only seem to be strengthening - more to do with being poorly worded than on a misunderstanding no doubt)