- Dec 29, 2015
- Reaction score
Go debate the guy, I want to hear this...seriously.
It wouldn't end well, for anyone. I know exactly how it would go, and I'd wager a fair sum it'd be like this:
He posits one of his 'rhetorical' questions which have answers, I'd put forth the answer. He'd reject that answer with something like 'that's what they want you to think'. I'd point out that my answer is verifiable by dozens of peer reviewed experiments and founded on scientific principles which can be taught (and are) to middle schoolers, who can (and do) perform experiments to verify the physics and principles behind them. That it's not blind faith, it's rational observation. He'd 'counter' with saying public education is indoctrination, that and put forth something he feels is ridiculous which is taught. He would accuse me of being a sheep or a shill, and say that I can't see the truth because I use toothpaste with flouride in it.
I'd point out the whole principle of science is that we can put forth experiments with results which are predictable and able to be reproduced, and that 1) any 'bad' science out there, anyone can do the experiment themselves, and verify the results are different, and expose it as such; and 2) the whole reason it's a thing is because it allows us to collectively know things without everyone having to do every experiment. If there is fake science, just expose it, document performing an experiment which leads to different results. He would mock the very idea of that, and point out that neither he nor I had actually gone to space, and would say that neither of us ever will, because it's impossible.
So I'd ask, if it's all faked and no data can be trusted, what evidence would he accept? If I was the sheep, in what way could someone test his beliefs in such a way to where they could prove them to be wrong? He would put something forth, either something which has already been done and proven or some impossible standard. I'd point out either that the evidence was already there and he was actively refusing to accept it, or that via that impossible standard he was as much as admitting that he would not accept any evidence which ran counter to his beliefs. That he was actively rejecting any evidence he may have been bamboozled, and showing that he was disinterested in learning the truth.
He'd basically say 'no you' and make a bunch of unfounded personal attacks against me. He'd accuse me of being a complete moron and / or a shill actively furthering the interests of nefarious individuals. He would say that there was so much evidence he was correct that it was basically impossible for someone looking at the facts to fail to see the truth, unless they were compromised in some way. He'd put me forth as someone utterly taken by various government programs or something. I'd lash out and say that if I was so compromised how come I'm the only one of us able to comprehend 6th grade science, and challenge him to perform the experiments himself, prove some aspect of the calculations which guide rocket telemetry to be incorrect, or offer forth observational data which would lead to, based on those calculations, an actual different destination than advertised. He'd ban me and then spend the next 1/2 hour talking trash about me, and his ardent followers would leave feeling like I was a fool and he had 'won' the exchange, while those who already thought he was a fool would think that I had 'won' the exchange, and no one, literally no one, would have their minds changed.
Debate is only productive when it's between two individuals whose minds are open. I'm open to actual evidence of just about anything. But when the other side is just throwing up their hands and calling BS on all evidence which exists, while offering literally no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims and beliefs, the conversation can never go anywhere.
B/S/F if you haven't already, I'd highly recommend watching the documentary 'Behind the Curve', I'd recommend it to anyone but I think you would find it interesting and get a lot out of it. I know I did.