Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Strategy

16 posts in this topic

On any given CT topic, there's always a disagreement over strategy. Should we bombard the other side with proofs for our own position, or first concentrate on exposing what's wrong with their position?

In my opinion, the problem with the first strategy is that it puts us on the defensive. We present our thoughts and then the whole debate is all about what's wrong with our argument. We never get to the point of putting the other side on the defensive, so what should have been a questioning of the other side's argument becomes the opposite. Always being on the defensive side of a debate is a disadvantage, much like playing only the "black" pieces in chess. The defensive side must work all the harder, and if they don't have all the answers, they are deemed the loser regardless of how weak the opposition's argument may be.

In logic, there are terms for "offense" and "defense": polemic and apologetic. A polemic is an attack upon some idea or claim, while an apologetic is a defense of it. Even the word "attack" has to be defined, since it has become loaded with negative meaning, just as "ad hominem" has become. Neither necessarily includes the element of hostility. In logic, an attack is simply a challenge, while a defense is a rebuttal to the challenge. Personally, when I use these terms in a discussion, I mean them logically, but confusion reigns because others often take them in their popular connotations of hostility. Likewise, to be defensive is not necessarily an emotional issue or character flaw, but simply a rebuttal to a challenge.

We see these issues constantly on every topic from religion to politics to scientism. Misunderstandings become distractions ("red herrings"), and the topic is abandoned in favor of questioning each other's motives. We all get lured into such things, so by knowing something about logic and strategy we may be able to avoid them in the future. Please see *Link Removed* for a quick reference on logical terms. On any topic dear to the CT community, we will move forward only by being more disciplined in our thinking, which is what logic is all about.

So, for example, if there is a debate over the shape of the earth and all things cosmological, the established side (ball earth or BE, gravity/Big Bang cosmology, quantum physics) should be the apologetic side. Theirs is the reigning and popular view, and it needs to be weakened before the challenging side (flat earth or FE, electric universe cosmology, aether physics) can begin its defense/apologetic. The way to weaken the established position (the attacking/polemic side) is to show how their own beliefs are in error by their own standards. This is the key; we cannot be polemic against their claims by being apologetic for our own claims. To get them to doubt their own foundations is to win the debate before it really begins.

Once again, the key to changing minds is to first of all get them to doubt their own foundations. Know what you believe and why, and be prepared to defend it if someone else challenges you. But don't always be on the defensive; make sure that others must defend their own claims by their own evidence. We see this successful strategy in the NASA exposures, showing how fake everything is. Then, when many people are convinced that everything they've been told is a lie, rush to fill the vacuum with the truth.

Do you think this is a good strategy for any given topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point but maybe it takes too much time.  We probably don't have too much time left where we can discuss these things anyway.  The courtroom idea seems to get to the crux of the matter quickly.  Let's present an argument and let the other side present theirs. For the flat earth, the huge burden of proof is on NASA to prove the spherical earth since NASA undoubtedly lied about the moon landings.  Let everyone be a judge and an advocate and just maybe the truth will be revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rothbard said:

 For the flat earth, the huge burden of proof is on NASA to prove the spherical earth since NASA undoubtedly lied about the moon landings.  Let everyone be a judge and an advocate and just maybe the truth will be revealed.

why wouldn't the learning of the knowledge that nasa has accumulated be the judge? when it comes to fe, there can be no meeting in the middle because there are different sciences being used on the 2 sides. far too often people 

when you approach someone, the burden of proof is on you, whichever side you are on. you are the one challenging. I take the approach that I have grown up under here in the US, the burden is on the one that brings the argument. 

4 hours ago, Rothbard said:

The courtroom idea seems to get to the crux of the matter quickly.  Let's present an argument and let the other side present theirs. For the flat earth, the huge burden of proof is on NASA to prove the spherical earth

what court have you been in? the burden is on nasa only if nasa presents the argument. they seem to be fine with letting people believe the earth is flat. nasa isn't acting like idiots and running to youtube to put up videos to prove the earth is spherical. it looks to me like fe people are the ones challenging nasa. the burden of proof lies on the fe side. nasa isn't challenging your belief in a fe, you are challenging their belief in a spherical model. they keep doing what they do no matter your belief. you also need to understand that within an organization as large as nasa and the industries surrounding it, there are many belief systems at work and many people trying to prove and disprove things. 

to put it in another setting- many cry that the nsa is attacking tor to break it. it can also be seen as the nsa is an organization of cryptographers who love to 'beat' puzzles. when you have a large group of like minded people, why would they decide to not solve a puzzle nobody has solved? in that instance, never forget that they funded tor and continue to fund the growing of the deep web. why would they want to destroy it? they use the deep web more than anyone else. 

nasa deals in science. in science the 'proof' is in recreating. nasa deals in math. in math the 'proof' is in recreating. most things nasa comes up with are publicly available to 'prove' or 'disprove'. 

you already don't believe. so it is mostly a moot point. 

"Over the last 57 years of space exploration a lot of countries have had some involvement in space. This can range from the building of rockets, designing experiments to go on board and even providing and training the astronauts who go into space. Due to the tremendous cost of space travel, exploration outside our planet has become a truly international affair.

That being said only a limited selection of countries possess the ability to launch something into orbit around the Earth. To date there are 9 countries that have orbital launch capability. These are Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea. These 9 countries have the ability to build and launch an orbit capable vehicle. Great Britain developed launch capacity in the 1970’s but did not join the European consortium Arianespace, therefore losing this ability. A few other countries have inherited technology allowing them to make orbital flights. These include Ukraine and South Korea, and nine other European countries who have access through the combined effort of ESA and Arianespace."

they all lie, right? if you can't accept the concept of space, you can't accept the concept of space travel.

Challenger, nice write-up. the point I would like to make about this strategy, is that it can only work on equal footing. what I mean by that is- 

many times if entering a debate, it is not regulated (like forums). what generally happens is that one party has a different agenda, so to speak. it happens to me on this forum and other forums, and I know it happens to you as well. what it is that happens is one party doesn't put all the cards on the table and it ends up as a moving target for the one answering. when you enter into a debate with one that does not believe you are truthful, the conversation becomes a moving target so they can try to trip you up. 

how many times have you seen a simple question asked, then provided a simple answer, then the reply is 'how do you explain this thing that has nothing to do with that?' how many times have you left a thread because the question kept changing? you can usually see where it is going, and I would guess, like most you simply walk away instead of continuing to get sucked down that hole. 

there is a thread here with a video of that michio scientist guy answering questions. if you understand what is going on in that video, it makes sense- he is asked a loaded question by someone challenging him. he has heard these arguments time and again. he is at the point where he is no longer going to waste his time 'proving' what he knows. so, instead of answering that series of questions directly, he tackles where he knows the caller is going with the question. similar, in that thread I walked away because of the moving question and knowing where it is going. 

it is all perception, and is sad to me that adults think that what the caller did was an amazing thing. 

to me, it is akin to a teenager that thinks it is the greatest thing that someone painted the hell out of a city bus to protest soda price hike. but the adult just shakes their head and thinks 'if these idiots would stop doing this the agency would have money to fix the buses'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, reg said:

why wouldn't the learning of the knowledge that nasa has accumulated be the judge? when it comes to fe, there can be no meeting in the middle because there are different sciences being used on the 2 sides. far too often people 

when you approach someone, the burden of proof is on you, whichever side you are on. you are the one challenging. I take the approach that I have grown up under here in the US, the burden is on the one that brings the argument. 

 

 

Without question, NASA lied their asses off about the moon landings.  Because NASA perpetrated one of the biggest lies EVER, it is only rightful to presume that NASA is lying about everything else.  Therefore, the burden of proof is largely on NASA.  Liars and their minions get no deference in court. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, reg said:

why wouldn't the learning of the knowledge that nasa has accumulated be the judge? when it comes to fe, there can be no meeting in the middle because there are different sciences being used on the 2 sides. far too often people 

when you approach someone, the burden of proof is on you, whichever side you are on. you are the one challenging. I take the approach that I have grown up under here in the US, the burden is on the one that brings the argument. 

what court have you been in? the burden is on nasa only if nasa presents the argument. they seem to be fine with letting people believe the earth is flat. nasa isn't acting like idiots and running to youtube to put up videos to prove the earth is spherical. it looks to me like fe people are the ones challenging nasa. the burden of proof lies on the fe side. nasa isn't challenging your belief in a fe, you are challenging their belief in a spherical model. they keep doing what they do no matter your belief. you also need to understand that within an organization as large as nasa and the industries surrounding it, there are many belief systems at work and many people trying to prove and disprove things. 

to put it in another setting- many cry that the nsa is attacking tor to break it. it can also be seen as the nsa is an organization of cryptographers who love to 'beat' puzzles. when you have a large group of like minded people, why would they decide to not solve a puzzle nobody has solved? in that instance, never forget that they funded tor and continue to fund the growing of the deep web. why would they want to destroy it? they use the deep web more than anyone else. 

nasa deals in science. in science the 'proof' is in recreating. nasa deals in math. in math the 'proof' is in recreating. most things nasa comes up with are publicly available to 'prove' or 'disprove'. 

you already don't believe. so it is mostly a moot point. 

"Over the last 57 years of space exploration a lot of countries have had some involvement in space. This can range from the building of rockets, designing experiments to go on board and even providing and training the astronauts who go into space. Due to the tremendous cost of space travel, exploration outside our planet has become a truly international affair.

That being said only a limited selection of countries possess the ability to launch something into orbit around the Earth. To date there are 9 countries that have orbital launch capability. These are Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea. These 9 countries have the ability to build and launch an orbit capable vehicle. Great Britain developed launch capacity in the 1970’s but did not join the European consortium Arianespace, therefore losing this ability. A few other countries have inherited technology allowing them to make orbital flights. These include Ukraine and South Korea, and nine other European countries who have access through the combined effort of ESA and Arianespace."

they all lie, right? if you can't accept the concept of space, you can't accept the concept of space travel.

Challenger, nice write-up. the point I would like to make about this strategy, is that it can only work on equal footing. what I mean by that is- 

many times if entering a debate, it is not regulated (like forums). what generally happens is that one party has a different agenda, so to speak. it happens to me on this forum and other forums, and I know it happens to you as well. what it is that happens is one party doesn't put all the cards on the table and it ends up as a moving target for the one answering. when you enter into a debate with one that does not believe you are truthful, the conversation becomes a moving target so they can try to trip you up. 

how many times have you seen a simple question asked, then provided a simple answer, then the reply is 'how do you explain this thing that has nothing to do with that?' how many times have you left a thread because the question kept changing? you can usually see where it is going, and I would guess, like most you simply walk away instead of continuing to get sucked down that hole. 

there is a thread here with a video of that michio scientist guy answering questions. if you understand what is going on in that video, it makes sense- he is asked a loaded question by someone challenging him. he has heard these arguments time and again. he is at the point where he is no longer going to waste his time 'proving' what he knows. so, instead of answering that series of questions directly, he tackles where he knows the caller is going with the question. similar, in that thread I walked away because of the moving question and knowing where it is going. 

it is all perception, and is sad to me that adults think that what the caller did was an amazing thing. 

to me, it is akin to a teenager that thinks it is the greatest thing that someone painted the hell out of a city bus to protest soda price hike. but the adult just shakes their head and thinks 'if these idiots would stop doing this the agency would have money to fix the buses'. 

Thanks for your kind assessment. But please understand that this is mainly a general strategy question, not necessarily limited to FE, which was used as one example.

There aren't "two difference sciences" being used. The issue is that the science NASA uses doesn't support its claims. Electric Universe theory, which is opposed to Big Bang/quantum physics, has no necessary connection to FE, and is still not a "different science". Science still requires observation and repeatability, and more than NASA's word that the images and claims it makes are genuine.  Given its track record of scams and lies, the burden of proof falls on them to explain and defend their claims.

So the question is who is making claims. Yes, the one making claims bears the burden of proof, but it isn't just FE making claims but rather FE demanding that NASA back up its claims. Meanwhile, FE develops its apologetic and claims, which would be theirs to prove IF the question is "defend FE". The fact that FE needs to defend its claims does not absolve NASA of defending theirs. And as I stated, NASA is the mainstream, the current paradigm, and has to "defend its crown" so to speak. My point is that if FE wants to knock them off the top of the hill, the best strategy is to put them on defense.

I do agree that the playing field must be level. But that's the problem; NASA holds all the cards. Mainstream science brooks no dissent and often ruins the careers of those who oppose it. The playing field cannot be level when access to facts (and the power to sway public opinion and even law) is so overwhelmingly in favor of one side. Totally agree about a moving target too; once your opponent deems you dishonest, malevolent, or unfair, it's not a debate anymore. Yes, I do walk away from those, as would anyone who seriously wants to debate the point on the table rather than the participants. But NASA has been caught falsifying data, altering images, and dismissing obstacles such as the Van Allen belts. So why give them our time? Why grant them equal status in debate?

Edited by Challenger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 19 I was gifted a box of CT books.

One of them was by J.A.C. Brown called Techniques of persuasion from propaganda to brainwashing.

It was very interesting and my friends have been told at University is was a banned book by by their psych lecturers and if they ever found one it was well worth the read.

 

What he said was very interesting and he published it in 1967. He was very worried about the rise of industrial psychology and mass influence over societies which was his primary reason for publishing.

He said if you disagree with someone their mental walls go up and they effectively stop listening to you. It is a defence mechanism. If you were given two opposing pieces of data on the same subject it would cause internal conflict. In a computer it would just crash, I suggest your subconscious register is very much like a computer program.

What he suggested was if you wanted to get your point across and get someone to listen and even change their mind you had to first agree with them, even if you actually didn't agree with them. From that point they would be receptive to what you were saying instead of closed from the outset.

 

Almost seems counter intuitive. You agree with the person you disagree with and then make you point in addition to their own which might actually be counter to their opinion and they would consider it instead of rejecting it out of hand.

 

We see the effect on forums all the time. People stop actually listening to each other and just start driving their own opinions more forcefully. One of the reasons I urge people to understand their own psychology and how their minds work in order to overcome detrimental programming.

 

I have a very good friend whom I did a lot of work with over the years. We did cutting edge philosophy in which we were delving ideas that hadn’t been previously explored having to use words in place of new terms and descriptors yet to be invented. It is hard going and you actually need to understand how the other person thinks to get the point of what they are getting at using pre-existing language which doesn't actually fit the ideas/concepts trying to be described.

We came to a good understanding of each other's minds after once having an argument in which things nearly turned very violent. It was a discussion in which we were describing animal intelligence from two different perspectives but we were actually making the same point described two different ways and it seemed each wasn't understanding the other. One of the few times I have experienced the actual air reeking of violence as sometimes described in novels. We both said we would like to hit each other, at which point I suggested we end the conversation and I left his residence. I came back several hours later and we discussed what had happened and realized we were both arguing the same point which is why we couldn't get a consensus of opinion as were both thought the other guy wasn't picking up on our points until we were both metaphorically trying to beat our opinions into the other and "the atmosphere reeked of violence".

After that we set ground rules in which when if it ever came to that point again we would both agree to drop it because of the lack of a point at that stage.

Because of that disagreement we became closer friends and were able to understand each other and how our minds worked more effectively. In the disagreement we had both stopped listening to each other and instead just wanted to make our points. I see that a lot on forums because people haven't been taught how to debate with the correct forms which lead to progressive discussion and the uncovering of new ideas and concepts.

 

I like to discuss things with people who have opinions that I don't actually agree with just to see why they think that, what has lead them into thinking that and in the process uncovering the inner workings of their mind. When you understand how other people think you can explain things in terms of how they think and they will be able to understand you more easily with less conflict. If you can't get on someone else's mental level you will not be able to get information flowing freely. You have to get on their wavelength.

My buddy suggests this is how we actually communicate. We are allowing a person access to our brains or to the place where we store information. Almost like sharing a torrent where I give you access to my mind's Hard drive between defined data points. Language is vague at times and English is very flexible. Stephen King suggested the best authors are the most psychic ones using the same effect I have described. They "assign the meanings of what they mean associated with the words they are using and the reader is able to access them psychically and understand exactly what they were getting at"

My buddy suggested you have to be on the same wavelength (literally mental wavelength of thoughts) to truly understand what a person means by their words.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Guitar Doc said:

When I was 19 I was gifted a box of CT books.

One of them was by J.A.C. Brown called Techniques of persuasion from propaganda to brainwashing.

It was very interesting and my friends have been told at University is was a banned book by by their psych lecturers and if they ever found one it was well worth the read.

 

What he said was very interesting and he published it in 1967. He was very worried about the rise of industrial psychology and mass influence over societies which was his primary reason for publishing.

He said if you disagree with someone their mental walls go up and they effectively stop listening to you. It is a defence mechanism. If you were given two opposing pieces of data on the same subject it would cause internal conflict. In a computer it would just crash, I suggest your subconscious register is very much like a computer program.

What he suggested was if you wanted to get your point across and get someone to listen and even change their mind you had to first agree with them, even if you actually didn't agree with them. From that point they would be receptive to what you were saying instead of closed from the outset.

 

Almost seems counter intuitive. You agree with the person you disagree with and then make you point in addition to their own which might actually be counter to their opinion and they would consider it instead of rejecting it out of hand.

 

We see the effect on forums all the time. People stop actually listening to each other and just start driving their own opinions more forcefully. One of the reasons I urge people to understand their own psychology and how their minds work in order to overcome detrimental programming.

 

I have a very good friend whom I did a lot of work with over the years. We did cutting edge philosophy in which we were delving ideas that hadn’t been previously explored having to use words in place of new terms and descriptors yet to be invented. It is hard going and you actually need to understand how the other person thinks to get the point of what they are getting at using pre-existing language which doesn't actually fit the ideas/concepts trying to be described.

We came to a good understanding of each other's minds after once having an argument in which things nearly turned very violent. It was a discussion in which we were describing animal intelligence from two different perspectives but we were actually making the same point described two different ways and it seemed each wasn't understanding the other. One of the few times I have experienced the actual air reeking of violence as sometimes described in novels. We both said we would like to hit each other, at which point I suggested we end the conversation and I left his residence. I came back several hours later and we discussed what had happened and realized we were both arguing the same point which is why we couldn't get a consensus of opinion as were both thought the other guy wasn't picking up on our points until we were both metaphorically trying to beat our opinions into the other and "the atmosphere reeked of violence".

After that we set ground rules in which when if it ever came to that point again we would both agree to drop it because of the lack of a point at that stage.

Because of that disagreement we became closer friends and were able to understand each other and how our minds worked more effectively. In the disagreement we had both stopped listening to each other and instead just wanted to make our points. I see that a lot on forums because people haven't been taught how to debate with the correct forms which lead to progressive discussion and the uncovering of new ideas and concepts.

 

I like to discuss things with people who have opinions that I don't actually agree with just to see why they think that, what has lead them into thinking that and in the process uncovering the inner workings of their mind. When you understand how other people think you can explain things in terms of how they think and they will be able to understand you more easily with less conflict. If you can't get on someone else's mental level you will not be able to get information flowing freely. You have to get on their wavelength.

My buddy suggests this is how we actually communicate. We are allowing a person access to our brains or to the place where we store information. Almost like sharing a torrent where I give you access to my mind's Hard drive between defined data points. Language is vague at times and English is very flexible. Stephen King suggested the best authors are the most psychic ones using the same effect I have described. They "assign the meanings of what they mean associated with the words they are using and the reader is able to access them psychically and understand exactly what they were getting at"

My buddy suggested you have to be on the same wavelength (literally mental wavelength of thoughts) to truly understand what a person means by their words.

Yes, agree. But of course, easier said than done.

Every time a discussion I'm in turns to a tangled mass of barbed wire, I try to go back and analyze it after a few days. In the most recent case, and with the help of a good and insightful friend, it seemed that when I thought I was being my most clear, concise, and cordial, everyone else took it as confused, combative, and crabby. Every time a comment I made was met with outrage and judgment, I was perplexed and wondered how anything could be taken so upside down and backwards. I'm more like Mr. Spock than I'd like to admit, and when all people see are words on a screen, it comes across as the opposite of the way it was meant. And once the walls have gone up, there's no tearing them down.

I do try to look for areas of agreement, and this is also what I try to do in the FE debate, and why I think mainstream science's own beliefs should be used against them. If we try to come at them with ideas that go against their beliefs, they won't listen at all. But if we approach them with the scientific method, with hard questions about how, for example, the tech of the 60s could have gone to the moon, then they are on the defensive and must justify their beliefs to themselves. And when they can't, when the cognitive dissonance sets in, then we can start supplying new ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rothbard said:

Without question, NASA lied their asses off about the moon landings.  Because NASA perpetrated one of the biggest lies EVER, it is only rightful to presume that NASA is lying about everything else.  Therefore, the burden of proof is largely on NASA.  Liars and their minions get no deference in court. 

so, to sum it up, nasa needs to prove everything to people that cannot understand what they are talking about because some people accuse them of lying? what if nasa countered that you are lying? would it then be a stalemate? or would you tell them to go watch videos on youtube and get back to you?

 

1 hour ago, Rothbard said:

Liars and their minions get no deference in court.

that is based entirely on who is prosecuting and who is defending.

I did a quick experiment after posting up there. I called my sister at work, at nasa. I asked her if they ever discuss what to do with fe people? she replied 'who?'. i then explained to her that a number of people fell that nasa lies and collects tax money to have orgies and whatnot to please ancient gods or something and we never went to the moon and the earth is flat or some other shape. she replied, 'what?'. I repeated it. there was a pause, then 'we were raised atheist, I have no gods to please. I also don't work for nasa, but with nasa, so I don't care where they spend their money. if someone were to ask nasa to prove these things, nasa would tell them to go to school until they could understand the lessons. I have half a dozen masters degrees to do what I do, and I don't send people into space'.

1 hour ago, Challenger said:

Thanks for your kind assessment. But please understand that this is mainly a general strategy question, not necessarily limited to FE, which was used as one example.

I used fe for rothbard and as a general example of how discussions rarely have a set question and answer. 

 

1 hour ago, Challenger said:

But NASA has been caught falsifying data, altering images, and dismissing obstacles such as the Van Allen belts.

honestly I don't know about falsifying data, but most large organizations either do at some time or it appears they do, I have never looked into it.

nasa was never 'caught' altering images. when nasa started releasing images to the public, decades ago, they were up front that the images were changed in some ways, usually to make things more interesting to a regular person to look at. 

the van allen belt. nasa certainly does not dismiss the van allen belt, they are trying to figure out how to blast through it instead of skirting the edge as we did in the past, and have people inside the ship survive. nasa does somewhat dismiss van allen himself, he has spun out into purely theoretical science and keeps yelling about how the belt is this size, no it's this size, no it's this size. 

1 hour ago, Challenger said:

So why give them our time? Why grant them equal status in debate?

well, the only way to truly debate it is to have the same or similar knowledge base. nasa's calculations are public info. if you, or someone you know, can understand it all, can understand what is right and wrong, and can provide proofs that it is all wrong, thus proving that nasa is a big lie.......the implications would be enormous. 

now, do you think with all the politicians crying for less tax and smaller government, don't you think this would have been done by now to stop the billions in tax they get each year? this is where things break down. if you can figure out how and why there is such a conspiracy, and you can prove it to most, then you have something.

I use the 2 sciences thing because when I see debates or proofs of fe, they are mostly based on older models of measuring before modern methods. 

if one does not continue to study advanced physics theory, one can never compete with nasa. and yes, nasa's 'facts' are the accepted. but they are accepted because others can replicate. now, talking replicating. take 2 smart people. one grabs some sticks and sets out to prove the earth is flat, the other sets out to prove nasa is right. 

one goes out measuring and getting the same results those in the past got. the other builds a rocket. they get together and the fe person says 'look at this, I can prove the earth is flat, and sets about doing it.

the other says 'impressive, but doesn't really make sense in my world. et's launch this rocket. I have programmed it to take off, spend 27 hours circling the earth, then it will crash into the moon. we can use this telescope to watch it take off, then we can watch it fly over us in about 26 hours, then we will watch it crash into the moon. then they do all that. 

inevitably, the fe person would reply something like 'you didn't prove anything except that you know magic. you know how I know this? because I know space doesn't exist and that moon is really a...... so you, sir, are a liar. 

then you are back to the beginning. without the same belief in the same systems/constructs, there is no meeting in the middle. 

22 minutes ago, Challenger said:

Every time a comment I made was met with outrage and judgment, I was perplexed and wondered how anything could be taken so upside down and backwards. I'm more like Mr. Spock than I'd like to admit, and when all people see are words on a screen, it comes across as the opposite of the way it was meant. And once the walls have gone up, there's no tearing them down.

this why I tend to qualify things I say. if someone takes it wrong after a qualifier, then I have no problem calling them dumb and leaving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Challenger said:

Yes, agree. But of course, easier said than done.

Every time a discussion I'm in turns to a tangled mass of barbed wire, I try to go back and analyze it after a few days. In the most recent case, and with the help of a good and insightful friend, it seemed that when I thought I was being my most clear, concise, and cordial, everyone else took it as confused, combative, and crabby. Every time a comment I made was met with outrage and judgment, I was perplexed and wondered how anything could be taken so upside down and backwards. I'm more like Mr. Spock than I'd like to admit, and when all people see are words on a screen, it comes across as the opposite of the way it was meant. And once the walls have gone up, there's no tearing them down.

I do try to look for areas of agreement, and this is also what I try to do in the FE debate, and why I think mainstream science's own beliefs should be used against them. If we try to come at them with ideas that go against their beliefs, they won't listen at all. But if we approach them with the scientific method, with hard questions about how, for example, the tech of the 60s could have gone to the moon, then they are on the defensive and must justify their beliefs to themselves. And when they can't, when the cognitive dissonance sets in, then we can start supplying new ideas.

I think you were the victim of other people's beliefs already being set so they saw your words in their own context rather than in the context you had intended. That wouldn't change until they had "calmed the farm" in their own minds.

When people have ideologies they are committed to I don't bother arguing with them. As long as they are not harming anyone or themselves I don't really worry what they believe.

I have seen some people suggest the FE theory is a JTRIG operation with the intention of making us all look like fools to outsiders who are just starting to look into CT so they will dismiss everything we say out of hand.

 

Once a person has a set belief they are mentally invested it they will defend it with the same force and depth of opinion of the most religiously devout person you have ever met. To not do so is counter to their Ego in which they are not allowed to(because of the Ego) allow the possibility they are wrong because that would make them look a lesser person in public.

 

I always try and keep the right to change my mind at any time open to prevent mental imprisonment. I always try and keep the mental possibility open I could be wrong. If a person doesn't their beliefs end up being like a Prison Cell and it stops mental development and mental flexibility.

A dastardly person could mental develop a mind trap for people who cannot keep their minds flexible. ( have been in several over my life, the only escape was to go against my own programmed beliefs)  The walking dead but mentally so. Once you close your mind to other possibilities you prevent mental growth I feel. You might as well be locking the door and saying "I will progress no more, I might as well be finished as an individual"

I see these mind traps everywhere. The idea that people can't or aren't allowed to change their minds at any time freaks me out a bit.

That said you still need some mental pillars to build your mind on. A house built on sand will not stand long.

 

Have you ever read Richard Bach's Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah ?

The introduction is interesting. About the creatures who clung to the banks of a river and couldn't conceive of the idea of letting go, but once one did it was briefly scary followed by the view of other mental worlds and perspectives. Almost like an analogy of Plato's cave where once you told people of other beliefs outside of their own they would rather beat you to death that let go of what they thought gave them constance and security of unchanging predictable life.

 

You have to be careful on these forums. Sometimes if you go against other people's opinions forcefully they will internally label you a life long adversary and you will never be able to get along. There are a few people who will never have anything to do with me because I cut their argument to ribbons and then rubbed it in in my earlier years on forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guitar Doc said:

Almost seems counter intuitive. You agree with the person you disagree with and then make you point in addition to their own which might actually be counter to their opinion and they would consider it instead of rejecting it out of hand.

in the US we call this good cop bad cop. it is how they get the feeble minded to admit to crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, reg said:

so, to sum it up, nasa needs to prove everything to people that cannot understand what they are talking about because some people accuse them of lying? what if nasa countered that you are lying? would it then be a stalemate? or would you tell them to go watch videos on youtube and get back to you?

 

that is based entirely on who is prosecuting and who is defending.

I did a quick experiment after posting up there. I called my sister at work, at nasa. I asked her if they ever discuss what to do with fe people? she replied 'who?'. i then explained to her that a number of people fell that nasa lies and collects tax money to have orgies and whatnot to please ancient gods or something and we never went to the moon and the earth is flat or some other shape. she replied, 'what?'. I repeated it. there was a pause, then 'we were raised atheist, I have no gods to please. I also don't work for nasa, but with nasa, so I don't care where they spend their money. if someone were to ask nasa to prove these things, nasa would tell them to go to school until they could understand the lessons. I have half a dozen masters degrees to do what I do, and I don't send people into space'.

I used fe for rothbard and as a general example of how discussions rarely have a set question and answer. 

 

honestly I don't know about falsifying data, but most large organizations either do at some time or it appears they do, I have never looked into it.

nasa was never 'caught' altering images. when nasa started releasing images to the public, decades ago, they were up front that the images were changed in some ways, usually to make things more interesting to a regular person to look at. 

the van allen belt. nasa certainly does not dismiss the van allen belt, they are trying to figure out how to blast through it instead of skirting the edge as we did in the past, and have people inside the ship survive. nasa does somewhat dismiss van allen himself, he has spun out into purely theoretical science and keeps yelling about how the belt is this size, no it's this size, no it's this size. 

well, the only way to truly debate it is to have the same or similar knowledge base. nasa's calculations are public info. if you, or someone you know, can understand it all, can understand what is right and wrong, and can provide proofs that it is all wrong, thus proving that nasa is a big lie.......the implications would be enormous. 

now, do you think with all the politicians crying for less tax and smaller government, don't you think this would have been done by now to stop the billions in tax they get each year? this is where things break down. if you can figure out how and why there is such a conspiracy, and you can prove it to most, then you have something.

I use the 2 sciences thing because when I see debates or proofs of fe, they are mostly based on older models of measuring before modern methods. 

if one does not continue to study advanced physics theory, one can never compete with nasa. and yes, nasa's 'facts' are the accepted. but they are accepted because others can replicate. now, talking replicating. take 2 smart people. one grabs some sticks and sets out to prove the earth is flat, the other sets out to prove nasa is right. 

one goes out measuring and getting the same results those in the past got. the other builds a rocket. they get together and the fe person says 'look at this, I can prove the earth is flat, and sets about doing it.

the other says 'impressive, but doesn't really make sense in my world. et's launch this rocket. I have programmed it to take off, spend 27 hours circling the earth, then it will crash into the moon. we can use this telescope to watch it take off, then we can watch it fly over us in about 26 hours, then we will watch it crash into the moon. then they do all that. 

inevitably, the fe person would reply something like 'you didn't prove anything except that you know magic. you know how I know this? because I know space doesn't exist and that moon is really a...... so you, sir, are a liar. 

then you are back to the beginning. without the same belief in the same systems/constructs, there is no meeting in the middle. 

this why I tend to qualify things I say. if someone takes it wrong after a qualifier, then I have no problem calling them dumb and leaving. 

I don't think that the reason people demand proof from NASA is because they don't understand things. Certainly there are people in every facet of life that don't really understand what they so zealously defend. Even most atheists I've ever encountered could be described that way. But I do believe that there are legitimate grievances against NASA, and that they have relied too much on "just so" stories. No less than Tesla derided the relativity theory of Einstein, and said that total reliance upon mathematics rather than experiment was inhibiting scientific progress, or words to that effect. And when we see an Apollo astronaut first saying he didn't even know if he went through the VAB, then that it didn't matter because they didn't know about them at the time, then that it wasn't a problem due to short duration in them, we know we're talking to liars. We also have studied the moon mission films and stills, and there is a multitude of problems that NASA must explain. If watching videos on YT is a reason to dismiss all questions, then why does NASA keep releasing images and videos to it? NASA uses YT, so NASA must be one of those YT videos I should go watch and then get back to you. Really, this is just shooting the messenger, and doesn't help defend NASA at all.

So you called your uncle--- er, I mean, your sister--- who works for the defendant. And this is called an experiment? This means NASA should be declared innocent and all the charges dropped? Sorry, NASA isn't getting off that easy.

And because "everybody's doing it" ("most large organizations"), then it's okay and NASA is off the hook?

NASA has indeed been caught altering images. Haven't you seen the alleged photos of earth from the moon, where it's clear that something like Photoshop was used to place the moon in the shot? This isn't about stitching strips of images together, or enhancing contrast, this is about duplicating cloud patterns and showing "photos" of earth with wildly different sizes for continents.

NASA's calculations aren't what this is about. Math can be used to "prove" things that do not exist in nature. If I too may invoke the "uncle defense", my son the math major was told by his prof that it's mathematically possible to prove that the prof down the hall is a carrot. And if I too may use the "appeal to authority" fallacy, Tesla had no respect for pure math that bore no relation to reality. So calculations aren't the problem, it's empirical science that they are lacking. Photos are not evidence; rockets that go out of sight are not evidence of rockets going to space.

As for money and politics, you have to be kidding. We live in the era of bank bailouts, massive welfare, asset forfeiture, and irresponsible foreign aid. Money grows on trees these days, just ask the Fed. Trillions have been "lost" (e.g. on 9/11) but nobody cares. All the rhetoric about cutting taxes is a dog and pony show for the "voters".

Older science models are based on observation, so don't dismiss them lightly. There's a physics guy on YT (that thing NASA uses to post lots of videos) by the name of Brian Mullin, who has some excellent questions regarding the gravitational constant and whether it was ever actually proved. Look it up sometime.

If anyone is asking us to believe in magic, it's NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.