-
@ RedTailHawk
2025-05-19 20:52:36
1. I am writing a book. It may have to be multiple books because I have so much to cover. That said, yes, I do have to write a book BECAUSE there is so much to cover. When you are the ignorant one, you do not get to say how much there is to be covered. Also, stop moving the goalposts. You said there was no evidence. I offered you evidence so your response wasn't "Wow, Red, you're right. I hadn't considered those pieces of evidence." It was "to again criticize me but this time for countering your ignorant contention that there was apparently no archaeological evidence.
When I do write the book, I don't expect you to read it. You clearly don't understand how Occam's razor applies.
2. "If what I'm saying is right..."
What I'm getting out of your commentary on that is that you don't know how to do the Scientific Method. Scientists are interested in furthering their understanding of truth, right? Scientists, like any wise person, admit when they do not know something. When I use scientists, that's what I mean. There are plenty of people who LARP as scientists and might even have science degrees and background but because of their mindset, they are not truly engaging in the Scientific Method which makes them not truly scientists.
A true scientist will thoroughly explore the theories of fellow scientists simply because the probability that they are correct is non-zero. Once the theory has been thoroughly explored, only then can the peer review be legitimate.
You may have checked out my presentation, but I sincerely doubt you have done any deeper due diligence, chasing any of the sources I offered, which was the point of my presentation. There's too much information that is relevant to pile it all into one presentation.
That's how one ought to explore theories but most people only look until they find something they disagree with, at which point cognitive dissonance sets in and invincible ignorance rules the day.
So, yes, the correct way to look at Hinduism or Buddhism or Hapgood's theory or anything is to hear them out thoroughly first, due some deeper due diligence, and try to steel man their case. Steel manning, in some instances, means speculating upon the invalidity of counter-evidence. If the theory offers plausible explanations for dozens of mysteries but the theory is contradicted by 1 or 2 pieces of "knowledge", well, at that point, Occam's Razor dictates that we more closely inspect those 1 or 2 pieces of "knowledge" and see whether they are in fact "knowledge" or not.
Clearly, that's not how you operate though. You don't try to steel man people's theories. That's why I told you to try looking at it from the "what it it's true" perspective. I had to tell you that because you don't do that. You only look from your own perspective and that's not how scientists learn anything.
Furthermore, mathematicians will use assumptions to begin proofs seeking a logical contradiction along the way. It is common to begin something with "assume X is true..." then consider the logical dominos that would tip over as a result of that assumption.
Your uncharitable interpretation of my adherence to the Scientific Method in the discussion of a scientific theory does not amount to a logical fallacy.
3. "You do realize that a magnetic polar shift doesn't mean the Earth physically turns on its side, right?"
You do realize this sentence of yours is in no way a compelling argument, right? You do realize that this sentence of yours in no way refutes the evidence I presented in favor of this theory, right?
4. I spoke somewhat inaccurately there, you're right. The speed of the earth's core has slowed, suggesting an eventual deceleration to zero followed by the spinning of the core in the opposite direction.
https://www.earth.com/news/earths-inner-core-proven-to-be-rapidly-changing-and-now-rotating-backwards/
That's just one article. Look it up. You'll find plenty of results to verify.
5. The fact that they say that's what the Svalbard seed bunker is for doesn't mean that's what it is for. You're presumably a Bitcoiner using NOSTR. If you believe that's why they built it, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Occam's razor says unnecessary assumptions should be avoided in theory construction. If you take the narrative I propose and you put a tally mark in the "pro" column for every weird thing that I point out in my presentation that the theory presented explains and then you put a tally mark in the "con" column for every new question that arises as a result of reassessment of prior beliefs, you will find that the pros drastically outweigh the cons.
Do the math. Count em up. I've stacked receipts. You just want to dismiss them, which is weird. As a Bitcoiner, you should know better than anyone how incredibly bad the global population is at doing their due diligence. Even most Bitcoiners only did their due diligence because it was potentially profitable. It shouldn't be a shock to your system to learn that most people have had a distorted perspective of history and cosmology.
Either way, thank you for your conversation. I will be using you as an example when I teach people about what is wrong with the world: a lack of honesty and receptivity dominated by ego and ignorance.