Travis Calvert

------------------------------------------------------------
K. R.:
It never ceases to amaze me that there are actually people who support the flat earth theory in a world where information is literally at your fingertips.


------------------------------------------------------------
J. S.:
@Travis Calvert, how can you question proven information backed by mountains of evidence?


------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Calvert:
@J. S. Great question.

I can reasonably question information which is popularly regarded as 'proven' by questioning the 'evidence' and 'authenticity' supporting the information.

Empirical evidence is fallible evidence. Sensations are unreliable. Science is inherently guesswork. Scientific experiments require controlled environments, but we never know when we have a totally controlled environment, because we don't know what may be out there tampering with our experiment. This is literally why scientific conclusions change over time, and precisely why more honest scientists like Richard Feynman teach science is guesswork.

All fundamental scientific laws are based on inductive arguments. So, even if authorities are honest, which they are not necessarily honest, they are still not necessarily correct in the scientific assumptions they shove down our throats. Scientific fact is really humanistic guess.

It's much easier to question dishonest mankind and his guesses than it is to question some fantasy 'black and white' unquestionable 'rock solid' "proven information". I read your question as "How can you question the guesswork that is provided by mankind, who is known to be ignorant and deceitful for selfish gains?". Well, the question suddenly becomes easier to answer, doesn't it? I can question it because I am capable of reasoning, and I understand that it is logically possible for the masses to be victims of an elaborate hoax.

However, I don't expect you to be realistic about the downsides of science; most people shy away from that truth and end up defending their fantasy of what they think science is, and the try to tear reasonable people down in the process. In fact, that is why I hesitated to engage with you. Judging by the way you worded your question, I am pretty sure you aren't on my level. We probably won't find common ground.

For example, you ask how I can question 'proven information', which paints you in an attractive spotlight and paints me as a poor man in a ditch, because it makes me appear stupid on the surface. But I disagree that the information was necessarily proven to begin with. So that means I am actually just questioning unreliable information, but you are making it appear as if I am questioning reliable information. So I have to work around your crap in order to answer - and even though I eventually come out on top, I usually don't have time for that.

I mean dude, you are literally questioning how I can question. Think about that. That is awesome. What does that say about you? I mean... Do you not question?


------------------------------------------------------------