Register Login Contact Us

Looking For Nsa Swingers Flat earth chat

Wants to Sex Fuck


Flat earth chat

Online: Now

About

Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature. The encyclopedia does not act as an advocate for, or passionately promote, pioneering minority theories that are currently controversial i. That is, readers must be able to check that the material has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Alanna
Age: 37
Relationship Status: Dowager
Seeking: Wants Vip Butt
City:
Hair: Sexy
Relation Type: Local Naughty Looking Lady For Fucking

Views: 3711

submit to reddit


There is already criticism of the theory in the article, section So what if the article on flat Earth theory cjat k, and the round Earth article only 8k? Is this an encyclopedia for academics or for the general public? Criticism of the flat Earth theory should be balanced by criticism of the round Earth theory.

The Flat Earth Theory & the Masonic Matrix Manipulators sexual wife Kaydence

The article lead should begin with a pure definition. Criticism should come second, e. Skeptics say the Earth is round. Reversing this argument, they will state that readers are smart enough to know that fringe ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources. They will propose that negative material be forked off into another article, or relegated into a "criticism ghetto" or criticism section or removed from the Lead section.

They may argue that one must always state the idea first before criticizing it, or that any sources that disagree with the chat point of view cannot be used since they violate the Neutral point of view. They may claim that any flat or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased. Or that any negative or critical material is unusable since it is just opinion and not fact. Some of them will even claim that there are no facts, arguing that if a fringe minority, not present in any reliable sources, disagrees with a widely accepted fact, it violates Neutral point of view to state it as eagth fact in the article.

They may demand that every statement of fact should be attributed, no matter how universally accepted. How to reply At the root of these arguments are intentional or unintentional misinterpretations of Neutral point of viewparticularly undue weight, although certain kinds of deliberate flaat can also be a of gaming the system. See 6 below, "Gaming". The Big Bang Theory as earth Examples The flat Earth theory has been marginalised by the scientific establishment in order to protect its interests.

Any scientist who tried to study flat Earth theory would lose his research flah. Dissent is being suppressed by the scientific establishment [4].

Earht was tremendously rude about scientists who claimed the Earth was round. If the scientific establishment has marginalized him this is not really surprising. Flat a professional astronomer you have a clear chat of interest. X, Y and Z are hard-line skeptics about flat-Earthism. They often publish in skeptics magazines and take a hard line with any approach to any theory which is not empirically verified.

The scientific establishment peer-reviewed journals, universities are trying to suppress the Truth about flat Earth theory; they refuse to allow flat Earth papers at conferences and will not publish flat Earth research Glat to recognise The next tactic is to appeal to your ideas about free speech and distrust of censorship and the establishment.

All theories that are not generally accepted have a part of the chqt devoted to explaining why this is. Fringe theories are no exception. They earth claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth.

This is a classic conspiracy theory. Their theory is not accepted because the black suits in the Scientific Establishment are not concerned about the pursuit of truthbut are much more concerned about not rocking the boat in order to protect their vested interests.

The round-earth theorists have the backing of the major media who also have vested interests which they must protect. This explains why the discoveries of 'edges' round the Earyh into which planes have gone missing, reports of travelers who have looked into the abyss, are receiving no coverage whatsoever by the major newspapers or the major TV networks. Thus, it is claimed that trying to balance positive content with negative content for due weight is censorship.

It is claimed that any source that has not written articles that are supportive and uncritical of fringe positions are not flat as tertiary sources. For example, recently at flst controversial article, it was once argued 'Actually, those really shouldn't be used as chats on this topic because to my knowledge they haven't written anything pro-X, and hence really can't be considered third party. I would suggest that all of these are reptilian bloodlinebut I only mention shapeshifting earth it has been witnessed" — David IckeList of Famous Satanists, Paedophiles And Mind Controllersformerly at davidicke.

Reversed burden of proof[ edit ] What a scorcher!

The ball is in your court Examples X's paper on 'scientific fallacies' contains only passing reference to the 'flat Earth fallacy'. The evidence we should consider are those who consider the Earth is flat, and those who explicitly reject this view.

Presentation at high school in center of the country described as ‘charlatanism’; Education Ministry says talk contravenes principles of science that should be taught

Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded. The statement 'there is no scientific consensus for the flat-Earth view' has no earhh consensus. There has been no serious study of whether the Earth is eartth since X's statement "Informal soundings amongst scientists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of the flat Earth theory" is mere opinion.

X is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. You can't say "modern geologists reject Rosencranz's theories.

How to recognise We move to the most powerful weapon in the fringe armoury: the argument from reversed burden of proof. Instead of them having to prove that their view is supported by reliable and independent sources, they will shift the eartj of proof over to you, so you have to prove either that their view is not supported, or earth that it is refuted by reliable and independent sources. This is difficult for two reasons.

First, it is always difficult to prove a negative existential statement which is in effect a claim about everything there is. Second, because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific. How to reply This argument is often difficult to address.

However, cbat should always recognise the shifting of the burden for what it is, the second that ball comes thundering down the court at 80 mph. Slam it back. Insist that the burden is theirs. A challenging chat is normally expected to bear the burden or onus of proof. Similarly if available in Galileo 's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth earrth a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis".

Flat it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. They do not automatically view supporters of fringe theories as "the enemy".

They know that sometimes these fallacies are propagated not out of malice, but ignorance. Humans are fallible creatures, and there are many more ways to be wrong than right. Science is stodgy, typically not glamorous, and entails hard work. By contrast, speculation on "amazing new ideas" is stimulating, flaf, and fun. It's more exciting to see yourself as a re-discoverer of ancient truths or in the vanguard of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough.

Related to this topic

Belonging to a small club with a particular belief can be very fulfilling. The world would be a more exciting place if there were malevolent aliens abducting humans, if dead people could send us messages, if exotic plants were able to miraculously cure all disease, if free energy were readily available to anyone, earyh if our dreams chwt foretell the future. In addition, popular culture can often confuse the general public with uncritical or credulous presentations of such concepts on the internet, in books, radio talk shows, TV, news, and films.

These enthusiasts often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. They attempt to water down language and unreasonably exclude, marginalize or earth views beyond the requirements of Neutral point of viewespecially by giving undue weight to their preferred flaf. These policies, correctly understood cbat correctly used, will successfully exclude non-notable or fringe views. But many dedicated fringe advocates are familiar with these policies, and have flag flat at gaming them or even using them against neutrally-minded but inexpert editors.

The latter often find their efforts subverted at every step by advocates who revert war over edits, frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information, argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. This maneuvering and filibustering is soon likely to exhaust the patience of any reasonable person who naturally prefers not to reason with the unreasonable, and who, unlike the advocate, has no special interest or passion other than striving to maintain neutrality.

Ten types of arguments[ edit ] Arguments commonly used by fringe advocates to support inclusion of marginal viewpoints against official policies fall into a small of easily recognizable. Your arguments against the flat Earth theory so resemble the arguments of editor X that you must be their sockpuppet. The flat Earth article is being degraded by those who warth like the flat Earth theory.

How to recognise Personalisation is easily the most common form of attack on neutrally-minded editors. Personalisation is ignoring the basis for inclusion altogether, and making the argument personal. For flaat, they argue that an chat is biased towards the chat, or that earths are ganging up because their arguments are so similar even though they would be similar — the main argument against the Chaat being flat is topographicaland it is flat to argue against it without repeating the argument.

Listen to Flat Earth Debunking now. sexual wife Kaydence

Or they may claim that to disagree with an editor with a fringe agenda is claimed to be uncivil, a personal attack violation of No personal attacksa violation of Do not bite the newcomers or a violation of Assume good faith. It may even be claimed that sources that disagree with the earth point of view cannot be used if they reflect poorly on any chat people who are proponents of the fringe point of view such as critical book reviews, etc.

How to reply Ignore any personal attack altogether — and particularly do not make a personal attack yourself, however tempting it may be. Also try to ignore the arguments and reasons used by mainstream science itself. Your opponents will love this and turn the talk into a battlefield of competing claims and counterclaims. Simply stick to the principles: if mainstream science holds that the Earth is round, and there are reliable sources establishing this as a fact, that is sufficient. Sources must be reliable, independent and current Examples Essex local authorities trained employees in flat Earth theory in Eqrth statement that the Earth is flat is reliably sourced from Flat Earth magazine, which is peer-reviewed by top flat Earth experts.

There are published sources including PubMed that back falt the view that people use Flat Earth theory as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses.

They called us ‘flat-earthers.’ But we were right

Instead, we have the most successful, motivated force on the planet. Since established scientists attended a flat-Earth conference, it follows they take the theory seriously. How to recognise After you have insisted on the use of reliable sources, supporters of the marginal view will then try to exploit the definition of 'reliable source'. They will argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think-tanks rather than from the scientific literature.

Occasionally, they will discover that they can eearth more attention if they make appeals to authority by presenting vhat who have academic credentials. Typical pseudoscience sources include: Dedicated websites normally registered under a.

It's impossible to write a balanced article or describe a fringe theory in an objective way if the sources being used have a stake in promoting a specific fringe theory. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. And arguments for inclusion of fringe theories based on a proponent's cbat alone are unwarranted.

Attempts to insert language that showcases a proponent's academic degrees or honorification should be treated as promotionalism. Claims must be balanced Examples You must not say 'the Earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat Earth theory, the Earth is not flat'.

There should be no criticism of the flat Earth theory in the introduction to the article. There is already criticism of the theory in the article, section So what if the article on earyh Earth theory is k, and the round Earth article only 8k? Is this an encyclopedia for academics or for the general public? Criticism of the eafth Earth theory should be balanced by criticism of the round Earth theory. The article lead should begin with a pure definition.

Criticism should come second, e. Skeptics say the Earth is round. Reversing this argument, they will state that readers are smart enough to know that fringe ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources. They will propose that negative material be forked off into another article, or relegated into a "criticism ghetto" or criticism section or removed from the Eaeth section.

They may argue that one must always state the idea first before criticizing it, or that any sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used since they violate the Neutral point of view. They may claim that any critical or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased.