First: Your beliefs are still not being questioned here anew. You can believe whatever you want, including that the earth is square and that it orbits a pink elephant on stilts.
Second: argumento ad populum also doesnt do much here. Invoking a majority vote instead of counter arguing, debunking or disproving the claim does nothing.
If the text is too hard to comprehend then you can just look at the gifs on the right side.
Do you think that the argument of two bodies in weightlessness exerting force on eachother according to their respected mass, holds true?
In extension: Is it fair to say that the center of any solar system (around which the celestial objects orbit) is the center mass and not whichever object holds the largest mass?
Is it fair to say that (according to our current understanding of physics) this is a proven fact?
Well since you tagged me, yes, you’re saying something that’s true and it’s likely that anew1 doesn’t actually understand the substance of the claim. He probably thinks you’re a geo-centrist or something.
I don’t expect others (without the quotation marks) have to agree or disagree with my beliefs.
You could simply move along. Less for you to write. Less for others to read. Or, as you sometimes respond, ‘okay’. What you wrote, in English, to the vast majority of readers, includes a judgment of what I have asserted. In English, it is not ‘just’ showing you accept that that is someone’s belief. The word ‘really’ shows the judgment.
If you aren’t judging that belief, then a simple OK works fine. If you are judging the belief, then you are not ‘just’ accepting that that is my belief.
Yes, got it. And, to get really fussy: ‘around’, geometrically implies a circle or here and ellipse. But it’s actually a cylindrical helix, since the sun is moving at 500,000 mph. So the earth is moving in a spiraling pattern. Saying it is moving around the sun isn’t really right even without the barycenter issue. It is a 3d motion not a 2d one.
Nice intensity shift, and without any irritation on your part.
You’re the one who keeps bringing up your incredulity that people do X or don’t do Y in a philosophy forum. But now we understand: you are not like us, so you don’t do those sorts of philosophy forum type stuff.
Imagine if someone told poor Age (anew1) that if we wanted to be absolutely precise, actually in principle we would have to add together all the gravitational effects coming from the entire observable universe, to calculate the Earth and Sun’s trajectories. It’s just that most of those gravitational effects are imperceptibly small. Luckily this is so far above Age’s head that she couldn’t contemplate it.
He’s forgetting context, conveniently. Now he is telling Flannel Jesus that what he meant was we don’t provide proofs or as we might say ‘justification’ or ‘evidence’ and he does. That’s not how he’s like us. But that doesn’t make any sense in context.
But my post was pointing out that he doesn’t do evidence, presents proofs that are not proofs, does not even try to support claims like the one in bold.
In response to my pointing out that he does not act like people who participate in philosophy forums he says he isn’t like us.
It’s not him saying, no I proved that I can see and understand why every person…etc. No, he’s clearly saying he doesn’t do that stuff because he is not like us.
The best outcome for something built happens when broken down into objectives. Each objective needs tools. The quality of the tools doesn’t matter as much as how they are used. As long as each part of the process is accomplished according to its intended design in a precise way, the building up will go well. It’s ok to go back to check out and admire each individual objective, to take pride in it. Sometimes it’s only yourself and those who share the talent that can see the beauty, satisfaction and meaning in it.
Then why did you say specifically that you are not here to provide us with proof of your claims
Once more, I am not here in philosophy forums to justify my claims and assertions.
I point out that you don’t you prove your claims and you responded by saying that’s not what you are here to do. You also say that the only claims you are here to prove are those claims you’ve made to future generations. And you are proving that by showing them our responses and commenting on them.
But now you say to FJ that you actually do prove your claims when asked, despite how this contradicts directly what you said earlier.
You just keep contradicting yourself. Just to make this even more clear:
anew1: Of course it meant that.
The very fact that I am not necessarily here to substantiate my claims means
they will not be.
They will not be. So, you make it utterly clear that you are not here for that in one post and in another you make it clear will not be substantiated.
But now we are supposed to believe that you do substantiate them. That you will prove them.
You keep talking out of both sides of their mouth. Some quotes from anew1:
anew1: Have you SERIOUSLY FORGOTTEN ALREADY that I USE ‘you’, peoples, in the days of when this is being written, to PROVE my CLAIMS are True to ‘future generations’?
Also, I don’t need your compliance for me to use you. You are already doing exactly what I wanted anyway.
I asked him: Are you infallible when it comes to knowing what is True and Real?
Anew1: Yes, and this is just because of the formula I have and the process I use.
Once more, I am not here in philosophy forums to justify my claims and assertions.
I may be a very simple person but seeing and understanding all of ‘life’s’ so called problems, and answers is really rather easy. I can see and understand why every person is the way they are and why they do the things they do.
All of you here are in a cult, but since none of you even recognise which cult that is, you do not even realise that you are in a cult.
And, how do you know, for sure, that I have not what you call, “found my love” with all people, in all ages, already?
What is called ‘time travel’ is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.
He puts you “on the spot.” And you know you are in question. He either picks a question himself and asks you, or responds to your comments or questions. But whatever it is, when you say something, he denies statements of yours, even at the expense of committing self-contradictions. (From where he is there are no self-contradictions. He makes a statement, then a moment later, he makes a second statement which negates the first, but now by that moment he has moved from the first to the second, so he no longer holds to the first statement. The next moment he negates the second and so on. For him, these so-called contradictions are no contradictions. Since, as far he is concerned, there is no reality with which the first statement agrees and becomes true, there is no second statement which by negating the first becomes its contradictory.) Or, he constantly exposes the unwarranted assumptions we make in our thinking, leaving us vulnerable. At times, he makes some dogmatic statements without even trying to justify them. On initial impressions, the listener is tempted to contradict them, but soon you realizes that the right to make decisions comes from one’s experiences, which the listener is no great position to understand or judge
I am willing to say that this works as a thought experiment and/or deconstruction of a topic/talking point.
Its perfectly valid to skin your own position layer by layer asking what evidence you have for it or what makes you think so.
However, this is not something you casually do in a conversation. Especially not without announcing your intent first.
Its an extremely good faith interpretation of what he has been doing.
My problem is that he is fully aware when he starts to piss people off with it, but even then continues to just offer this… pretty idiotic intellectual superiority and deflection when prompted on it.
Like how you cant ask for evidence on his claims because then he instantly moves the goal post and says that you just assume the claim he is making.
Or when he does olympic level mental gymnastics like how bringing academic definitions as proof is just proof that you do not have proof.
Its literal gaslighting.
Its not the deconstructing that is the issue.
Its how he goes about it. And thats utterly ridiculous, you cant in good faith assume that he is not doing it with the purpose of massaging his own ego.
