• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why not admit that Hubble is lost and gone ?

Nay_Sayer said:
CT'er handbook page 34: Science books cannot be trusted
Click to expand...


I highly doubt that you would know what REAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Let's TEST my claim...

Post The Scientific Method...?

Define and list the characteristics of a Scientific Hypothesis....?

Define Scientific Theory...?

Define Scientific Law...?

A 5th Grade General Science Graduate could answer these with no sweat in less than 5 minutes, without wiki/google. :thumbsup:

Go ahead...?


regards
 
Malbec said:
I could give you chapter and verse on key positions taken by Nazi officers in the Manhattan Project and then the CIA .
.
Click to expand...

Oh my we will wait for that then. Will you use crayons or copy and paste?
 
Daniel said:
I highly doubt that you would know what REAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Let's TEST my claim...

Post The Scientific Method...?

Define and list the characteristics of a Scientific Hypothesis....?

Define Scientific Theory...?

Define Scientific Law...?

A 5th Grade General Science Graduate could answer these with no sweat in less than 5 minutes, without wiki/google. :thumbsup:

Go ahead...?


regards
Click to expand...

..you pretend to believe in a FE and that pretty much knocks you out of the science arena...lol
 
NoahFence said:
Claiming the Hubble doesn't exist pretty much took care of his science cred...
Click to expand...

I'm always amused that Daniel and those like him put up ridiculous stuff then want serious answers - while demonstrating they have 'pre-denied' whatever is written.

Inept trolling.
 
Daniel said:
The Why:

Well The Moon/Space Missions ect ect were conjured by satan to finally show once and for all that:...[snipped the stupid]
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to actually read your Bible (not a Bible comic book) you'd know that Satan would be thrilled to see mankind leave earth...for good. Since Satan can't kill us, the least he could do is get us into space ships.

To do that you need a round planet.

You fail.
 
Hans said:
I'm always amused that Daniel and those like him put up ridiculous stuff then want serious answers - while demonstrating they have 'pre-denied' whatever is written.

Inept trolling.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think Daniel really believes this stuff, or at least is particularly attached to it; Malbec maybe a little more so, at least when he's actually able to identify the topic. But one doesn't have to be much of a troll to get attention here.

Why they find trolling worth even the tiny effort they put into it, I can't say. I've worked with engineers who made hardware for Hubble servicing missions, and with astronauts who actually carried out a couple of those missions. Seems a lot more interesting to me than retching up stuff from crank web sites just to get attention from the grown-ups, but to each his own.
 
sts60 said:
Well, I don't think Daniel really believes this stuff, or at least is particularly attached to it; Malbec maybe a little more so, at least when he's actually able to identify the topic. But one doesn't have to be much of a troll to get attention here.

Why they find trolling worth even the tiny effort they put into it, I can't say. I've worked with engineers who made hardware for Hubble servicing missions, and with astronauts who actually carried out a couple of those missions. Seems a lot more interesting to me than retching up stuff from crank web sites just to get attention from the grown-ups, but to each his own.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I've noticed that Daniel's posting coincides with school holidays, and his arguments in each a direct copy of each other in each thread with just the topic switched. Yet he never adresses any of the actual arguments. Maybe someone trying to program one of those semi AI things with this board as a test run?
 
Daniel said:
Ad Hominem Fallacy -- (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy --- is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html





Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html


Good Job :thumbsup: You attempting some kind of Fallacy Record?
Click to expand...

Your shrill repetition of the word 'fallacy' does not stop your material (and I use the word 'your' advisedly) being garbage and sourced from an idiot.

I have not decided on its idiocy in advance, or concluded it is garbage without looking. I have checked the material, confirmed it is garage and drawn a reasonable conclusion about its author as a result.

Whining about ad hominems is a nice cop out for you isn't it? Bitching about all these supposed fallacies the world is employing against you nicely absolves you of any responsibility as far as backing up your argument and engaging in reasonable discussion is concerned.

If someone calls you a brain dead moron, why not try demonstrating that they are wrong, instead of confirming it with every word you type?
 
Daniel said:
Ad Hominem Fallacy -- (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy --- is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html





Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html


Good Job :thumbsup: You attempting some kind of Fallacy Record?


regards
Click to expand...


Just so you know for future: Those WOULD be fallacies if he was using them as an argument against you.

He does not appear to be. He appears to be giving his opinions of the argument, and sources, having tried to familiarise himself with them. This is of course a fine distinction, but seems clear from the context of his post.


Just to make it absolutely clear, they are not fallacies at all when they are the truth. His language may have been colourful, but if the source you describe contains many errors that can disproven by simply using a telescope and getting some fresh air to make observations and keeping a good log, or whatever, then it is not a fallacy to describe it as silly and ill informed.

Your use of the "genetic fallacy" is clearly wrong too. His argument is that you have simply repeated data without criticism, in a thread where you have been posting data, without criticising it, and naming that site as a source.

Do you no longer wish to recognise it as a source?
 
Daniel said:
I highly doubt that you would know what REAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Let's TEST my claim...

Post The Scientific Method...?

Define and list the characteristics of a Scientific Hypothesis....?

Define Scientific Theory...?

Define Scientific Law...?

A 5th Grade General Science Graduate could answer these with no sweat in less than 5 minutes, without wiki/google. :thumbsup:

Go ahead...?
Click to expand...

Yeah let's do that:

The orbital parameters of Hubble are well known and the times and locations at which it should be visible to ground based observers can be determined easily.

Looking into a clear sky at a time and place when Hubble should be visible will either:

Show that it is there.
Show that it is not there.

Repeat as often as necessary using several locations.

Off you go.
 
Conspiracy theorists like this remind me of those cooky Freemen of the Land.
They believe that if they say the right incantations, the rules of the real world somehow don't apply to them.
Random capitalization, yelling 'fallacy', reversing the burden of proof, and claiming only science they agree with is 'REAL science' are no substitute for actual evidence.
 
It just bemuses me when somebody declares the ISS can't exist because of "Real Science". Real science apparently does not include a good pair of binoculars, to check if the ISS is in the sea, or if it is above your house on schedule.
 
I'm almost at the point that I wish smart people had never invented the concept of a an argumentative fallacy. There's too many people out there with only a bastardized surface level misunderstanding of them that think just screaming them is an argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom