see the sun rotating as you literally orbit it Um, and of course the seasons considering that the earth is tilted that is additional proof that We orbit the sun. Thank you. Literally none of those are actually exclusive evidence Or it's not at all I'm just going to tell you real fast that that question actually comes from my show Going globes it was the first question we asked like and you provide any exclusive evidence that the earth orbits the sun And it's obviously because I know the typical answers of parallax You didn't even mention aberration and retrograde And admittedly if you actually do your research and understand the kinematic equivalence None of those things prove that we're moving around the sun In fact, relativity requires you say the same thing would happen if the earth was stationary I explained the neopticonic model I explained that the stars could just even slow down or the planets could even slow down in relation to the background stars So none of those things are exclusive evidence the seasons also are not the sun is either moving on an ecliptic plane Or it's just an illusion because we're tilted, right? But then the cosmic microwave background actually showed the distribution at 23.4 degrees way beyond the local system proving that the earth isn't locally tilted Long story short There is a kinematic equivalence everything that you just named is just kinematically equivalent on a stationary earth None of that is exclusive evidence that the earth orbits the sun.  Uh, what's it? I want to talk about, um The philosophy of knowledge for a second You can never know anything with absolute certainty And when you keep saying exclusive evidence for something, um, that is not a realistic expectation to make any kind of Requirement for any kind of theory if I see someone walk in my house There is no exclusive evidence that he walks into my house My eyes could just be playing a trick on me the whole time I can always dig a deeper for another question that denies that that person is walking around in my house I can always dig deeper and deeper and find itself, you know, that I don't actually know the thing epistemology um But you have to eventually admit what is and isn't more reasonable and that's the purpose of Occam's razor It is far more reasonable that everything we observe parallax retrograde starla rotation seasons All those things add together to paint a picture You can't look at one piece of evidence and make a conclusion out of it You have to look at it all and then make a decision Yeah, thank you That's called the ponderance of evidence and if we apply Occam's razor to the ponderance of evidence All astronomical observations make the earth look like it's in the center of the universe Your model claims that that's an illusion Because everything's accelerating expanding in all directions Even though they can't figure out what energy is causing it and we have the Hubble constant or the Hubble attention problem Where they don't match up the measurements don't match up Because they have to say oh, it's a giant illusion that the earth in the center of the universe Occam's razor would say All astronomical observations show the earth in the center of the universe Because it's in the center of the universe Not that space and time bend in warp and time stretches and slows down and the universe is accelerating expanding You just can't really tell and that there's something mass magical there that no one can find that's making it happen And that's not Occam's razor So Occam's razor is that the earth is in the center to quote Edwin Hubble A central position of earth can never be disproven We avoid it at all costs because the idea of a special and unique position is intolerable and horrific Okay, so it's a philosophical decision And yeah, I mean I wish you would look into that I I actually think you're probably pretty cool, man, and I think that you should look into it I think you should watch the documentary the principle you should actually look into the geocentric position and find out the truth is At your own model admits that all of those things you listed work just as well On a stationary earth. So That's pretty cool. You're pretty cool too wits it.  Um, but No, I I'll use one example to try to make it as quantized as possible retrograde motion retro good motion is obviously Would be clearly observable if we were orbiting our sun and those other planets were orbiting the same sun that is Hands down obvious Look at the presentation. I made it makes it clear as crystal But wits it says yes, that would explain it But no That's not it looks it's just going across the sky just because it goes in that direction And that orientation does not mean it's that way It just happens to be set up to look exactly like as if it's orbiting the same star as us That's literally what you're claiming with the the accelerating universe is claiming It just happened set up the exact way to make the earth look like it's in the center of the whole universe And we're talking about the vast majority of the universe not just the little solar system So that's a way more you problem You think that most of universe is conspiring to deceive everyone on the earth with all astronomy to make it look like we're in the center That's what your position says So the neoticonic system the ticonic system came before your belief that we fly around the sun What interferometry measured it stationary? So we don't even have to speculate about which one makes more sense One's been measurably proven with interferometry My All of my arguments look back at the tape all my arguments have been based on observation comparing two different things to each other mine is not based on Authority or anyone individual who's lying who could be lying to me Mine is all about observation every single observation was consistent with my Model and it would have been a completely different observation with his model One of them has Occam's razor on its side. The other one doesn't let the audience decide Yeah, all right. Um, so just to give you guys a state of where we're at So far with just about every super chat. I ask we've been getting like two more. So The exchanges are great. Everyone's here for it. Uh, but it's you guys that are on your clocks. So let's uh Let's keep going. Shall we brian peck two dollars six quadrants. Are you sure about that with it? No, of course not. That's why I said that's just one of the Potential explanations that someone has shown is viable With actual demonstration. So I don't I don't know exactly how everything works That's the whole point Just like he said only that's that's actually what I say all the time and actually to address the grifting idea Like I lost an incredibly good paying job Because I wouldn't take flat earth videos off the internet The notion that I do this for money is hilarious. But anyway, you know, I mean, I didn't say you make much money I actually lost the ability to make much money. So you gained other things what Follow ship Oh, so you think it's like an ego thing that people follow me and I would rather be poor to make sure that happens You said it not me. That's crazy that you think that's the case, but okay I don't I don't want to go any further down down this path. It's not even on topic Yeah, but it was like three slides in a row. He said it. So I mean, I just I don't yeah I don't disagree and the slides would have just kept coming back and forth. So That's okay Yeah Whitsett has A great following and they're all here in the chat tonight and he brings it with them And we're all here to watch the both of you and we're all having a great time So it doesn't really matter. That's all good Um run boston bears sends 499 to ask you both a question Um, so since he names william first, I'll let william go and then I'll let witsett go and we'll just stop it there Can high frequency radio waves and microwaves Propregate through the curvature of the earth If not, how are they sent so far in tests? So I'll let william answer first Can I share my screen? So I'm so happy that someone was able to give me the opportunity to actually show The many other slides I have which if anyone is interested Please just pause it at any one of these locations because you can read a lot that supports all of my theories Um So this is the one Yes Frequence these radio frequencies that you describe absolutely can go much farther than you would intuitively believe. No, they are not limited by The horizon all the time they can go much further. Uh, it's mainly due to You guessed it refraction. Absolutely. Um on a very basic level, you can see a clear refractive Refraction effect just with your eyes on a normal basis based on the weather conditions of the planet, but within even slightly more complicated weather condition Different locations of the hot and cold Atmosphere you can actually have a bending of light that goes down and then starts bending Bounces off the earth and then starts bending right back down again. They're called trapped radio waves in the atmosphere And this is not a this is not just with me handing waving concepts. Um This is a absolute feature of Refraction that is one of the longest known sciences since hundreds of years ago Um Also ionic waves do bounce off radio waves. This is 15 peer reviewed articles that support that. Thank you All right, what's it your response? Um, yeah, I want to show one slide two real quick and then I'll just I think he has to stop first Let me see Sure stop Don't crash with it Yeah, I don't know why I did that so Zoom does that to me all the time. You can see it Yep So he brought up the ionosphere. That's a depiction of it on the top right. Uh, this started with marconi They sent transmission way too far for their globe. So All over heavy side theorized there must be some ionized layer if they're reflecting it back down So I have here the ionosphere is said to have a frequency range of up to 40 megahertz And this ionized region of the atmos allegedly reflects radio waves back down to the earth to explain why Line of sight transmission far exceed the geometric limitation of the globe earth model The world record transmissions ranging from 100 megahertz to upward of 100 gigahertz have been sent line of sight far beyond this Assume physical geometric limitation These frequencies are far too high to reflect off the ionosphere. That's phosphine spherical earth assumption Actually, they go higher than 100 gigahertz But if you look at the records if the if the ionosphere is 40 megahertz And it is true that that's if you have ionized gas, that's what plasma is plasma's ionized gas If you shot a radio wave that it would bounce back Right, but if you send a frequency that's higher if it's a higher frequency than the plasma, it'll penetrate straight through it Ironically when they claim they send radar to the moon and all this stuff They never have to worry about it bouncing back because they know it's higher than 40 megahertz But when we send things line of sight over the earth horizontally all of a sudden it's magically there And then how convenient let's talk about aqua's razor real fast to close it out We shoot it line of sight it goes horizontally for thousands of miles The globe claims that there's some magical ducting effect that's never been directly detected or measured in its theoretical And according to the military very unreliable for any type of predictions And it goes as if it was completely straight and horizontal over a completely straight and horizontal plane earth But really it's an illusion. It's curving magically whenever we need it to so there's no actual evidence that you could go thousands of thousands of miles With high frequency radio waves magically bending around the globe And it's too high to bounce off the ionosphere because it would penetrate it due to the frequency So long distance high frequency transmissions of emf absolute are like em waves Refute the globe model All right, i'm gonna stop can i say one last thing or no nope. No, you can't nope sorry I just really want to get going because um A lot good. Well, you know, it's your first debate here. You've been fantastic. Uh, the chat is electric for you. You've done Thank you guys. We've had a great time with both of you guys. What's it? You done great too, man But yeah, we're super chats. We're getting behind and that particular questioner Uh, asked you both so I allowed you both to answer so no response Um west fee or fe fe five dollars when the truth exposes lies And dishonesty the demon festers like mealworms Just look at chat earth is not a spinning water ball. Sorry wits it wins Don't think there was a question. I think someone was just uh spiking the ball and for wits it Next joey v 499 William do you believe in any conspiracies or do you just trust the government? The government lies to us Absolutely, they've admitted to it to us many times I really don't want to conflate science with the government because the government is not the same thing as science Um, so please don't conflate those two things Uh, yes conspiracies exist. We know this for a fact um Most modern day conspiracies you should not jump down the rabbit hole of um, because If you use doctors, it's not reasonable to science can be wrong as well Um, as we've seen in the past But it doesn't mean it's not the most reasonable explanation for most things in our life It doesn't mean you should write it off all as invalid just because it has been wrong in the past And just to reassess all these truths and fictions one more time I talked about things you should look into other than flatter documentaries There's other things you should look into I don't know if we know what those were, but I would really suggest record the tape Rewind it see what those things were look them up watch documentaries about those things to get a Real mind-blowing experience that might completely reassess your perspective. Thank you Enlightenment uh, Tucson five dollars For witsett who I hope is an earshot Austin can you explain the power of 10 to the 17 tour next to the pressure system? They don't understand this the global belief is scary Yeah, like the The only vacuum can even get remotely close to that on the earth has like 10 to the negative seven I think and it takes like immensely thick Concrete walls with rebar and it still doesn't really work as far as insane maintenance Um, but even in that situation if you had a pressurized system Certainly like 14.7 psi at the surface, right? It's going to violently fill the available space because entropy always increases So with all natural systems entropy increases therefore the amount of usable energy decreases It's going to fill the available space violently seeking equilibrium And so if we actually had a pressurized system on the earth and it was encompassed by this ever-expanding Vacuum of space the gas would violently fill the available space. It has infinite space to fill So you according to the second law of thermodynamics you literally could not have this gas pressure system We have on the earth that keeps us alive inside of a vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 torque could not be adjacent to that It violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is the most indisputable and agreed upon natural law, which isn't a theory It's just observation. It's a natural law. So that's a major globe problem I really want everyone to rewind the tape about 15 minutes back Or we were talking about this very fact about the atmosphere and how he admitted blatantly that the theory of gravity and the theory of the globe both together would in fact lead to atoms of mass Would be pulled towards large Massive bodies like planets therefore creating some kind of gradient atmosphere. He did say this he denies. He says this now So he'll deny I'll say it again, but he did say this rewind the tape. I trust you guys Okay, no, I was the answer is no I literally didn't say that what I said was sure if you wanted to entertain a theory that violates the second law of thermodynamics Then I understand your claim of a gradient That's what I actually said And no grad gas goes in all directions. It doesn't get pulled down to the earth There's omnidirectional dispersal of gas violently filling any and all available space where gravity is the strongest Which is the closest to center of mass at the surface of the earth We can put a pressurized system of gas inside of a vacuum chamber and if we opened it up, right? Where gravity is the strongest it will violently fill that vacuum But when we get up higher and higher and the gravity gets weaker and weaker and the vacuum gets way way stronger All the sudden it doesn't matter. It'll just sit there beside it We don't have to worry about it and that's not how it works in order to have a pressure gradient You have to have a container Let's explore this one more time. So if in the context, uh, I'd really Like honestly, William, you don't even see this list of superchats and we love to get through all of them I trust him man. You yeah, you're right. Yeah, this was so great Maybe we'll set up a part two or something But you guys have raised the bar for 2024's debates this year. I can tell you guarantee you that's an honor So wisco matt five dollars witzit. Why does Meach forgive the name. I hope you'll understand what's it Michio kaku professor of thermal theoretical physics Say that there is a crisis in cosmology You said it right in the context of that quote He was specifically talking about what I covered earlier, which is like the dark energy problem the cosmological constant problem um, which is The more that we look out into the space we see that the alleged measurements of the universe accelerating aren't matching up And when we keep making measurements, it would need to go something like four to eight times faster than the speed of light So you have to have some crazy strong energy to make like space itself and the universe expand that fast But there is no energy to do it And then what he was talking about is when we go into the like on the quantum scale We look at the electromagnetic vacuum. We see that there's energy in a vacuum. By the way, it's just an ether but anyway Whenever they looked at that and measured it and then tried to apply that to the problem It was off by 10 to 120th power and he's like that's the biggest discrepancy That's ever uh existed. So yeah, he's talking about the dark matter dark energy problem specifically the cosmological constant problem And it'll never be solved. Let's be real. So yeah, it's a major problem in the mainstream cosmology All right. Thank you, sir. Um, yeah, let's go uh, let's let's let's Activate speed around a little bit and we'll just get through these. All right. You want to go for five hours? I'll go super fast my bad No, no, you're I'm probably the one slowing you down No, it's it's fine. It's fine. Our fans are here for it. We're all good. I'm just saying like, you know We want to get to the end of the super chats. Um, your answer links are fine You you answer the question you need to the way you need to answer it These people have paid money to hear your answer. Let's not necessarily shorten the answers Let's just cut out the give and take and just go through it. All right um, so this one nominal five dollars william what percentage of Imaginary matter does your accepted model require? God You know that is I I don't know how to answer that question I'm sorry It's 83 of all matter in the universe is supposedly dark So you meant dark matter because I wasn't sure if imaginary was some other strange category I did the air quotes. They typed it with quotes imaginary matter Okay, I mean if you mean dark matter. Yeah a ton of it. Yes Like that 95 percent I think 83 percent Toby walker five dollars. Why did the instrumental error recorded in Michelle michelson's morally end up correlating with the Side real motion of the sun when measured by date and miller So why did we say why did the quote-unquote instrumental error of michelson morally correlate with the sidereal motion of the sun when Arroborated by date and miller that was it exactly and this is why I can never debate this topic. Go ahead. Whoever that question was for That's him okay, um I don't know the exact technicalities of that experiment and I'm not going to Make up a false answer to try to make you think I'm some god of science because I don't know everything So apologies solid answer To the chatter That's so tempting, but I want to go I want to go. Thank you, sir. John male lawyer five dollars Uh, william in good faith. Would you admit you have a bias to your educational field and it could lead you down a straight path I'm on a bias towards things that can be used repeatedly and observed consistently So if you want to consider that a bias yes Enlightenment Tucson five dollars. I cannot explain the desperation of harris Um, bringing up the mike hues. Wow. Do you realize you are making more true earthers? I'm so sorry. Can you repeat that one more time? They're uh, basically it sounds to me like, uh This person is challenging your arguments that it is actually, um, convincing people of flatter Sam, why'd you bring up mike hues when when he's not actually a flatterer through that? It'll make more people become true earthers to see that that's not true. Uh, yes, um Mike hues I really wanted to push that point make sure more people know about him because he is a product of the environment He was in he was a follower of a theory and it was manipulated by people who led him Down a path that he should not have been down that resulted in his wrongful death And it proves that misinformation is more than just Herm harmful. It's deadly So people who push it know they're doing so in with malice and It's uh, it's something that it's a big problem in today's world. So I wasn't a flat earther girl. We covered that I don't know what you mean. That doesn't have what are you talking about? Okay Daniel summer ten dollars Do you think the prospective dome would be a contributor to the reason why triangulation may be a challenge For estimating the height and distance to the sun and moon Yeah, of course because we see the apparent location of the sun and also we don't know the the composition of the medium between us and it Right, um, presupposing solidity and the medium between us a differential in the medium Is gonna also mess up, uh, how we supposedly tried to measure the distance to the sun But yeah, we're seeing the apparent location the sun like probably so so Yeah, you're not gonna be able to just look at it and know how far away is it's insane And even if you use triangulation like you could say oh the sun and the moon The sun is 10 times bigger than the moon and 10 times further away Or you could say it's 400 times further away and 400 times bigger, right? It's just a ratio Just like the first person that did it said it was like they were 11 times bigger Whatever so yeah, once we're short. Yes, it would be a problem because we see the apparent location of the sun not the actual position all right, um and Congo 44 comes back five dollars in response to our very first super chat So to give you an idea of where we are in super jazz Um in the mr. B's video you see the sun not just light as the sun never sets in Antarctica You do not see the sun for the full 24 hours That is incorrect. And so if you only why is that incorrect? Because you don't actually see the sun for the full 24 hours says who? From my understanding in that video, they don't show the sun for a full 24 hours Oh, I think she's referencing that mr. B saw the sun for 25 hours That's what i'm saying and they supposedly went down there and there's some video They don't actually show the sun mr.  Beast Sorry It's just weird that like you They're claiming that he went down there and saw the sun for 24 hours But the truth is they didn't actually see the sun itself for 24 hours Yes, there is sunlight for 24 hours. I even mentioned. I know a former NASA employee That was stationed there for six months during their summer. I said you do not see the sun for 24 hours. So Just claiming he said something Doesn't mean anything. I don't even know if he actually said they probably didn't Persons being disingenuous about the actual video if it seems like so Anyway Thomas Compton the fourth or four Five dollars. Mr. Sensible showed curvature with the mage project. Why do you lie? What's it? Uh say it again Mr. Sensible showed curvature with the mage project. Why do you lie? Yes, yes, he claimed to show curvature on a balloon, right? So if that's true, we're gonna have to throw out for one nil de grass ties in and other scientists on your side That claim you wouldn't see it from 60 miles. Let's throw them out.  So in these videos of the balloons where it looks like it's curving and then it tilts up It looks like the earth is concave That's just what lenses do and they claim that oh rectilinear lens doesn't have any curvature That is objectively not true There isn't a lens that exists in all of existence that doesn't impose Curvature and distortion So when it actually levels out you can see that that it's a flat and rising towards eye level And that's a globe problem curvature on a lens does not mean what the lens We're in some mode.  It's really bad brutally honest 11 pounds if earth Was flat logically the sun's rays would illuminate earth's entire disc not parts if flat wouldn't at all If flat wouldn't all the countries be experiencing same daylight hours as all the same time What's flat earth rebuttal Uh, man, this is like the first day. Okay If you have a smaller local light source as the sun Would not illuminate the entire surface at the same time Just take a flashlight on your phone Move it towards your desk and you'll see that it doesn't light the whole desk up, right? So it's called light attenuation So the absorption rate of light relative to the medium And there's a radius of light relative to the actual source and divergence based on the proximity of the surface So no just literally take a flashlight move it over your table and see the whole table doesn't light up And that that's a ridiculous straw man of the flat earth That's like it doesn't light up But you'd still be able to see it from different locations in the last The questions for witsit and I really want to get through these super chats So we're just not going to do any responses. Okay. There's questions for you, bro. Don't worry Um Eris 385 five dollars witsit. Have you seen the flat earth debate between preachers greg lock and dean oldle? Do you think the bible proves the earth is flat? um I did see the debate. I was on the front row in person um, I think it was kind of bad faith and pretty crazy, but Uh, no, I don't think the bible proves the flat earth I think that that's not the way that you go about this discussion Um, I do actually think the scripture are true, but heavily manipulated But that is not that is no way made my decision or something. All it did was make me reevaluate the scriptures as potentially valid and viable, but I know I don't think that the bible proves the earth is flat I think that truth and the evidence of the earth just adds validity to the bible So maybe you would say it the other way around but I don't think I don't know really any flattery that exists that claims that The reason they believe the earth is flat is because the bible says so strictly that isn't a real thing Just people go back to the bible once they find out All right. Mott Mott sends 1499. What physics did the paper cited by witsit use? Newtonian, Einsteinian to show the equivalency of Tycho's braias And Juana's Kepler's models of retrograde motion Yeah, uh, yeah, Tycho Brahe and Kepler. Um, they in that paper he uses Newtonian mechanics. So it's called like the uh Neoticonian Newtonian Machian analysis. I mean, yeah, it's kind of a mouthful But uh, yeah using the Machian principle and stuff like that, but he used Newtonian mechanics And of course just to clarify I'm not evoking the paper because I believe that you know the earth is in the center of the universe using Newtonian mechanics I'm just showing that In your own belief system It's there's a dynamic equivalence of the earth being in a stationary and most people don't know that and they seem to not want to inform themselves about it, but Uh, yeah, it was Newtonian Uh, megy maren Megan mary spends a dollar 99 in support of william flat earth destroyed again um, antonio Ignaz five dollars witsit. Why do airline flight paths rely on a globe earth to optimize travel times slash costs? Oh, man, if people assume that the earth's a globe and then it's run through a globular transformation And they would just go there. I mean, what's the matter? I mean, honestly, why do planes not lead their path? Like lead their target so they can save tons of money on gas that way I mean people are told the earth's a globe people assume the earth's a globe People navigate with magnetic declination corrections on a flatter thinking that it's supposedly a globe And that's all it is actually tons of flights make way more sense on a flatter They would be way out of your way on a globe. Yeah, they go way out of their way To make the distance way longer on a globe, but then when you look at a flyer if it's like the shortest path So actually the opposite of that is true All right Jack jazz jacket two dollars. I believe this is for you william airplanes move with the earth, but not sniper bullets Um, I do believe snipers do have to take corolla coriolis into effect not an expert sniping so I would highly encourage um Make sure you do more research on that can't give you the best answer for that Ted lococa dollar 99. So why is down more powerful? What's it? There's a downwind electric current on the earth. It's 10 micro micro amps per square meter So at any given time, there's an electric bias that's going down to the earth There's equiptential charge increasing 100 volts per meter this creates Of course, the earth surface is negatively charged up to 400 000 columns that creates a downwind electric current Just sets the bias. It's it's pretty weak on a small scale overall There's a lot of electric pressure coming from the sky radiant energy comes down to the earth. It's provable It's measurable. That's why we have a downer electric bias things equal seek equilibrium relative to density and buoyancy after that Alice McGee sends her first super chat To wits it. Why has no one reached the end of the flat earth or hit the wall? We can sail right around the earth Okay, there's obviously something called the Antarctic treaty which has had subsequent legislation since then anything past the 60th south latitude You cannot freely and privately explore that area Yes, you can go on a proof guide of tours to like the tip of one of the quote-unquote islands or the edge of an article whatever But uh, you can't freely and privately explore out past the 60th south latitude or even towards the quote-unquote north pole Either the north warning system has been in a place since 1957 uh international geophysical years So the answer is that you can't freely and privately explore there. They don't let you go I know this for a fact. I reached out and tried to do it. I reached out and tried to get approval I asked them what the prices were. I even tried to line up people that would pay the $250,000 permit fee and there's all kinds of crazy fees and they they do not They will not let you go across Antarctica. So Uh, that's why people haven't done it. It's it's literally not allowed All right, use the caber dollar 99. I am impressed by this debate. Great job guys Uh A nominal bear five dollars this This is the best moderator. Thank you so much. Also wits it. Please explain to all that we see Too far the math and how they use refraction as a scapegoat. Thank you Yeah, so this is going to sound almost robotic, but I'm trying to save this time So if the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles and the earth has the curve at a very specific rate We can know where the curvature of the earth should be which is the geometric horizon at 1.2 25 times the square Root of the observer's height and feet and we should that's where the physical curve of the earth should be in relation Now how you are above it? We see observations where like mountains are 273 miles away and should be miles below the curve of the earth, etc We see way too far So what the globe says is oh well the light's actually being bent around the globe matching the rate of curvature of the globe To lift things up five miles vertically behind the curve to make it look like the earth is flat Um So yeah, basically refraction is just a reification fallacy. It's a mathematical assumption based on how much uh curvature is missing Sir brine peck two dollars ships use gyro compass no magnetic declination Okay, uh ships absolutely account for magnetic declination my brother, so Uh, I don't know if you knew that or not, but yes, they also can have a gyro compass on board Uh, but they use magnetic declination to navigate if you didn't you would be in some trouble All right, ten la coca Ted la coca dollar 99 wits it could you be wrong? Uh, sure here But I would need actual physical empirical evidence Right right now my position is that the earth stationary topographical plane And that the earth is in the center of the universe and that's what all actual observable empirical measurable evidence says Um, it's been pretty much definitively refuted. I i'm always open to potentially being wrong I think anyone that isn't is super disingenuous But uh, I think we've proven as flat earthers that we are because we all Believe the earth was a globe and then had to admit that we were wrong Um, so yeah, I I don't see it. I'll be honest I see the evidence as overwhelming and that the The current model is physically impossible, but could I be wrong about some of my understandings of the earth? Sure All right, I'm gonna speed these up now get ready um scott with one t Two dollars will explain tidal nodes with the globe moon model the globe So talking about the waves and the tidal titles in the waves in the ocean, right? so that is a byproduct of the earth And the moon pulling on the earth and having the water be focused towards the direction of the moon That I would really suggest go back to my slide when you have the chance rewind it go look at the Graphic I showed on the screen. It's a direct cause of gravity the moon's effect on the earth All right, thank you Sky scion 499 william. Do you have any exclusive evidence? Oh Oh, did I accidentally go backwards here? Hold on. No, they probably asked the same question because it's one of mine on my My slide like on my my show. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I said the earth orbits around the sun. Yeah I don't remember this daniel summer question. So William, William doesn't have any exclusive evidence the earth orbits around the sun. No the answer is no You can never be a hundred certain about everything, right? What's it context is like Exclusive as in it can only be explained if the earth is moving around the sun Not if the earth is stationary. That's the context of the word exclusive, right? So not a hundred percent exclusive Yeah, we've explored the question. We've already explored the question. It's a different super chatter. Um, clearly a fan. Uh, so They can they can rewind and check the answer back there daniel subner summer no subner. Yeah, I had it right 10 dollars wits it Please explain that while refraction can obscure objects that can be seen but cannot make objects appear That are obstructed from view So the very nature of refraction is it bends like pretty sure they it's for wits it. Oh, I'm sorry yep Yeah, although there's physical obstruction of uh, like Something in the distance. You can't just claim that that actual physical location itself is going to disappear then reappear somewhere else That's the major problem of it is uh, they actually invoke refraction to claim that the Horizon is a physical place that's moving and then disappearing etc Um, so yeah, just a bit. It's just a baseless claim. I mean, yes in theory refraction Snell's law is about two medium light can bend quote-unquote relative to different mediums They're using a singular medium using a density and temperature gradient claiming it does it But it's never been established in a lab setting. It's never been verified It's literally just a mathematical contract when someone wants to come show me the rate that they claim with the conditions that they claim And show it in a lab setting and we can talk otherwise. It's just you know, it's a reification fallacy All right church of the flat earth 499 their first ever super Will uh, so for will from a cockpit would stars appear to rise while you maintain level flight or move east slash west Yeah Because you're going across the surface of the earth. So yes, you would start seeing new stars as you Change your location on the planet. Yes All right lord raw five dollars wits it.  I'm just gonna say what's it.  What does a flat earth Use and please explain it on your own map I don't claim a map, bro So if they lied about the earth every time the model under attack is tragic The tactic is to ask where a map is if they lied about the earth But you even ask and so I mean, you know, the king gave it a Korean 76 can't make a flat earth map You got to use the globe coordinate systems And so you can't even patent a map without using the presuppose global coordinate system So, uh, yeah, we can't freely and privately explore the earth to figure out exactly what the earth is or how to map it so All right, I can see the bottom guys. We're almost there So i'm going to take two seconds right now to remind everybody to hit that like hit that subscribe button We did not hit the hundred and seventy thousand that would have been super exciting But that's okay. I'm sure when I wake up tomorrow, it'll be a hundred and seventy thousand What's it? William? Thank you so much. This has been a great time. We do have some more super chats We're not going anywhere yet I just wanted to take the time and let everybody know there is an aftershow If you're not over it if you're ready to go in even more At matters now, there'll be an aftershow both you gentlemen are welcome over there Um moving on to our next super chat daniel subner ten dollars Just contributing for witsit as an atta boy for keeping your cool and your humor great Yeah, i'm a fan boy. Keep it up. Thank you much love much love T for two dollars How did nasa create cgi image in 1976? I think that's for witsit All right, i'm trying to get my charger I guess that's for me because people were like, oh how they have yeah, okay So they had big models that they made of the earth and of the moon admittedly They could just take pictures of models They didn't even have to have cgi not to mention that you can actually see Faked like photoshop, etc all the way in the early 1800s people used to actually sell spirit photography where they would They would overlap in black rooms or like the photo development rooms and make you look like their spirit of their relative was there Photoshop isn't a new thing But you could just make giant models and take pictures of them Which is what they did because you can actually find the pictures of nasa's giant moon models with the actual texture and all of that So they could just do the same thing for the earth. You wouldn't need quote-unquote cgi and They also if you ever seen a funny thing happen on the way to the moon We actually saw the quote-unquote astronauts in the quote-unquote spaceship Faking the earth from just not much lower altitude trying to make it look like a globe through the window using a circular Window, so that's not suspect at all. So anyway, yeah, you could fake it many different ways Alexander rin 499 if gravity doesn't affect gas. What does it affect? Why not gas? That's for you. What's I think that's for what's it? Yeah I know it's uh, that if gravity allegedly were true We can tell with empirical evidence it clearly wouldn't be strong enough to prevent gas from escaping in all directions Because where gravity supposedly is the strongest the surface gas will still Immediately and violently fill the available space of a vacuum So you could not have quote-unquote gravity holding it down as we can test the claim on the earth improve it violates the second law of thermodynamics So that's the actual point that keeps getting skated past All right nominal since two dollar super chat for a previous super chat from t Who says 1972? So I think they got the date wrong of the CGI image of 1976. They're correcting with 1972 It's the first time I've gotten a super chat for another super chatter um AP 499 And they say both sides can you list your points that do not assume globe or flat? But still work either way. So, um, I'll give you guys both, uh, like 30 seconds to answer this Uh, go ahead William first. Yeah, so I would just reiterate look over my whole presentation my presentation wasn't about proving globe my presentation was about proving the predictability of each theory trying to give each theory the Accurate prediction that it would give and then compare it to what is being observed. Um, best arguments stellar movement across the sky What's the issue? I ask can you list things that would work on both? Models and gives like kind of like a this litmus test of honesty or whatever But yeah, like, uh, you could say that the way that the planets move, right? You could say the way that the sun moves and the way that explains on the earth is as with the grid of uh vision Right, so you have an apparent location of the sun you can replicate this take a light over the dome You'll see it displaced, you know actually go on an arc even if you put it in a circle So it physically can demonstrate exactly what we see in the sky with stellar motion, but um, yeah, what could work on both? I mean You you could claim things like the position like optical positions of planets stuff because that's how we made the globe Um, yeah, it's the physical measurements that don't work And there's there's quite a few things that you could say would work on both right a lot of things go into both basket Uh, Sean 666 cents two dollars toby walker ten dollars. Why did you dodwitz its question about the uniform vertical electric field? How are the lines? Equip potential gradient lines parallel on a sphere I forgive my wording. I'm so happy someone brought that up again. Yes an atmosphere absolutely can act as an effective plane of Conductive energy So yes an atmosphere can act as a plane if that's the claim you're trying to make Thank you.  Yeah, it's just like you can look at it with a time lapse the sun just changes its position throughout the year It has an ecliptic plane So it creates like basically a kind of like elongated figure eight in the sky They claim that even though the sun looks like it's moving and looks like it's changing its position throughout the year It's an illusion and we're tilted wobbling four different ways flying through space even though that's been debunked So it's just a kinematic equivalence. It's but the analima actually probably impossible on their model But that's just the sun changing throughout the year and you know changing its position on its ecliptic plane All right church of the flat earth 499 william from a cockpit at 30 000 feet Flying straight and level for one hour Would the stars appear to rise and go around the curve? or side to side around the pool around the curve or side to side I so flying at 30 000 feet Straight and level for one hour Would the stars appear to rise as you go around the curve or side to side? If you're going in a straight direction on a curved planet, you're gonna see Stars rise across your field of vision So rise. All right Alexander in 999 Originally, we used information gathered from a lunar eclipse in ancient Greece more recently We used the laser reflection from the mirrors placed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission Not sure that's really a question I saw what's it kind of shake his head and we'll count that as the answer and move on Yeah proud flur 499 william has yet to address what's its one point to vertical gradient of Man these were eco potential. Thank you, sir. Eco potential energy hashtag level heads Uh, I think I kind of referenced it back where the guy asked about the gradient the Current going into the earth when I said that an atmosphere absolutely can effectively be used as a plane of charge An atmosphere can't it doesn't have to be a physical plane doesn't have to be a It doesn't have to be a solid it can be a gas that acts as a Electrically charged plane plane is a geometry term. It doesn't have to be a solid Oh, right. I think we're getting into like what's it's uh, it's all good. It's all good. Yeah, it's awesome It's great. The support we get from uh, our viewers is great Clouds create or thoughts create 499 William clouds appear to merge into the horizon. Are they following the curve of the earth? If not, why do they appear to do so? Um clouds appear to merge into the horizon. Yes, they go Across the horizon and on to the other side of the onto a side of the earth. You can't see um, if you really want to talk about strange Optical observations you see at the very Edge of the horizon you have to understand how refraction effects Light in air on a planet it can change depending on the weather Especially the temperature it completely changes the refraction index of the air and it can make light act in funky waves Thank you uh See davis 9 12 499, um There's a part of this question. William, uh, feel free to decline to answer. Okay Hey, thanks for the debate wits it love your stuff question to william. Do you believe in god? Oh God, I don't know if I wanted out myself. Um, but I guess you're free to decline the answer I mean that is not the topic of debate that's kind of personal technically at this stage Yeah, I feel like I I'll not answer that question. All right Lights for angels five dollars. William. Can you explain why a helium balloon floats using the current model of gravity? And not density or buoyancy little g equals acceleration Hmm No A balloon floating up is because of buoyancy. So no, I can't describe it without buoyancy because that's what the phenomenon is Bike token 999 to william. How does this? How does the same face of the moon stay locked on a spinning ball? Please explain why the pulling force of the sun's gravity doesn't pull the moon's face away from the ball Yes, so gravity Doesn't necessarily Mean it's going to be uniform over all sides of a globe one side can have a more Gravitational pull than the other when you're orbiting a planet The one side that's going to be attracted to a more will be the one that faces the thing. It's orbiting Thank you, sir. Tristan Arnold 499 wits it may the creator bless you for the intensively seeking and sharing the truth I'm prom. Thank you for support Mott Mott sends 698. Let's just wait for elan to send us to mars. By the way, what happened to my other super chat? um Sorry, if I missed it mott mott I can quickly scroll back after Um and see if I missed it Did you by chance maybe say something in there? I chose not to read um Malario 1 99 can use can you use telescope in san diego and see hawaii? No, dude, if you think you should be able to see across the entire earth You still don't understand the first part of a plain earth so crystal Foros $2 azea 422 40 22 says the earth is a circle Does yes, and he uses a different Hebrew word for ball right for after that. So Yeah, circle. He says he drew a circle on the face of the earth. So show me a flat circle on the face of a sphere Uh, you don't have a face. So yeah, he's a dip. He has a different Hebrew word for ball the same All right, thank you I'm gonna read this next one more like a comment because we've explored it twice already Mercedes f1 fan 299 mr. Beast went to Antarctica showed sun never sets He didn't show the sun in the video. Why are you guys lying? I Maybe we'll have to check it out. I guess yeah The science of science five dollars tipped to the mod. Oh, thank you, sir Eric Robinson two dollars wits it. Are you really?  You'll like this one's probably right wits it. Are you related to bilber? Oh, that's funny. I don't think so you do look like him um And 99 god five dollars. Oh proof of people upright Entipododal on the bottom of the ball from a viewpoint outside of the ball There is proof of people upright, which is all flat earth requires I don't think that was really a question. I think that was A statement about their position Um west flat earth two dollars Austin freestyle Megan mary 199 just wanted to say love mdd Did you just say austin freestyle? This is austin freestyle All right. All right. Check it ready do it man. Oh, they want you to freestyle Break it down. It's gonna be a freestyle though But better than veteran don't want to let him and ain't got a choice But to let him and I feel it in the ethers coming through the speakers You're talking to see me speak up, but you're not about it I believe I'm confounding but that's what we're found so deep today, John And I wonder what sound is a perturbation reverberation I heard the hate and I swear to fake and absurd debate and feel still stuck in the matrix station waiting for stations to say it Take a debate. We're going to take it.  Well, mdd loves you. Thank you so much Matters now two dollars after show on matters now will begin soon. They've probably already started John Malola if you guys are still here when this stream ends you'll be redirected over there automatically So you don't have to miss anything John Malola two dollars for for both So let's do this one quick for was nasa's moon landing faked. William Hell no What's it? What was the moon landing faked of course All right, randy karting 499 What why can we see the moon in the day if the moon is supposed to be In the other side of the earth in the globe model This is a very good question. Um, the girl the earth like The moon is not always on the opposite side of the sun in the globe model The best example of that is the solar eclipse where the moon actually eclipses the sun at the exact same point in In the optical space. So no, it's not always on the same side All right, so people sending some some bigger. They're spending more bigger amounts of money They're still sending them in Church of the flat earth dollar 99 White stars don't appear rise from cockpit flat 100 They said wit he wanted me to say he set you up like three questions about like does it do it We have time lapse of the planes that show that they don't move up the way they should and when asked left or right Is because supposedly there's this ideal rotations of your flying like say southwest northeast different directions You should see them also move to the side right because they're supposedly spinning in relation to the globe And then in relation to which way you're going with the curvature of the earth dropping They're also going to rise that way and that this time lapse of the planes. Uh, don't actually show what it's predicted by the globe Am I missing like a lot of super chess? Is that what you're trying to say or no I'm saying like no, I'm saying like the question's been given to william like two or three times It's the same guy that was kind of like setting him up. But yeah Yeah, I see and I understand where I went wrong with my reasoning where I answered that I did not take into account the motion of the earth and you're right If the earth is motion moving then I have to ask a couple more questions to make sure I get it It's pretty complex because it's like it's like compounding vectors, right? So yes, correct Uh, yadin 20 dollars Why is it that people in southern australia can't see polaris due to the distance? But two people in capetown and tasmania Respectively can both see the southern cross without any issue while someone in san francisco can't Um because they're closer So you can't see forever. I don't know why people think you can Things just uh things in the sky go down the ground ramps up until it reaches like the optical limit And actually it's curved visual space and one thing I will point out about the southern star trails Which I find very interesting is everyone thinks they claim that they can see them all through the southern cross from these continents all looking south No, they're not looking south. Well, actually look at the observations. They look like southwest They look at different uh elevation angles and different directions. They don't all look the same directly south That's not true And in fact the way that they get their corner direction is by making magnetic declination corrections Right, which is just whatever they claim it is in the south So you could think they're looking opposite directions make because you made a huge correction because in the south it gets crazy When actually they're not so anyway, yeah, you can't see forever on a flat earth. It isn't complicated man All right lights for angels 20 dollars William We can make objects float using electro statics Do the same with gravity hint you can't because it doesn't exist density buoyancy electro statics That's all we need not gravity Ha ha nelson's voice I think they're trying to do simpson's impression there Um, I think they're just arguing against your answer from previously if you want to respond feel free Yeah, um, if you want to try to say I should be able to use gravitation to make things levitate That is not true gravitation is inherently An attractive force So no that wouldn't apply to my argument But yes static electricity can apply a different force in addition to gravity on in certain situations like rubbing a Balloon on your head All right scott with one t five bucks Explain how the current time from sunset to darkness is equal right now Both north and south of the equator despite being opposite seasonally I think that's for witsit. Yeah, they're actually not so actually the twilight Twilight is longer in the south I mean shorter in the south So you guys tell me on the globe when it should be symmetrical Meaning that there's just a globe with a certain size turning giving us day and night That means six months apart right on the opposite sides of the area that we should have the same twilight But we don't they're shorter in the south Which makes perfect sense on a plain earth because the sun would have to be going a little faster tangential velocity Not angular speed right in the south to cover more ground and it literally shows it literally is the twilight is shorter there That is physically impossible on a globe. It should be symmetrical Based on the geometric claim. So Yeah, I'm not sure if that's exactly what he asked. It doesn't matter. Let's good news. Look. I can't scroll down anymore We're at the bottom of the list Daniel subner $5 at william. I have seen more evidence That we see the same sunspots Are we tightly locked to the sun also? No, the sun The sun spins you can observe the sun spinning look up the observation of the sun spinning You can see all sides of the sun as we rotate around it orbit around it. Sorry um John malea five dollars flattered thieve not want to debate mc tune. Why not austin? uh because He's proven himself to be I hate to have to do this, but kind of bad faith I'll just be I'll be polite about it right and he asked that Dave's perspective is that he isn't and he isn't debating this in good faith And so he's decided to not debate people that kind of like make a living off of hating on alternative cosmology and ridiculing people Are you talking about professor Dave? No, no, uh like flat earth. Dave Dave wise Yeah, he won't debate but tune which is like an anti flat earth guy. He won't debate mc tune Um, oh, yeah, Dave just doesn't want to do that anymore He doesn't want to get in toxic debates where he thinks the other person's bad faith So that's his own prerogative. I don't blame him. I don't debate I don't debate mc tune anymore not because of that as much that I debated him plenty of times It's over. So anyway to each their own Yeah, I agree Run boston bear 499 last super chat. Thanks everyone last chance for likes and subs Um, I'll be heading over to at matters now for the after show you all should as well William and wits it you would be welcomed over there with open arms People would get kicked out of the kicked out to allow space for you too.  I should have just Ended it when I had a chance we had under super chat while I said that William and wits it What prompted albert einstein to derive special relativity? William go ahead first different observations he made such as the bending of light around massive objects And wits it that's That's incorrect. That's arthur eddington experiment and that is general relativity the bending right where there is no curvature of space time and special relativity But in 1905 you proposed that because of the 1887 mc simorley experiment you had to say the apparatus contracted Uh to compensate just a sufficient amount for the missing time difference that would have been predicted This is going to be faster based on the assumed orbital speed of the earth and that wasn't observed So very simply new tony mechanics says objects going to move in a straight path unless an outside force acts upon it So if the earth's curving around the sun there must be an outside force acting upon the earth curving it But the we didn't detect the circular motion with interferometry Which you would probably be able to do so einstein saved the day came up with a new theory to keep the orbit claim By saying we're actually going straight in our orbit and we're not curving and we're free falling And that's why you weren't able to detect it and he had to contract the apparatus And then say time slows down and all this other stuff So einstein himself said that the reason he came up with special relativity was because of the megal somorley experiment And like experiments proving that the earth doesn't orbit unless we change physics All right last question. Even if one comes in We're we're gonna we're gonna bug her out of here um Yadin ten dollars So this was the earlier san francisco question san francisco is between those two apparently on a flat earth But can't see the southern cross But they do And can't see polaris due to distance Even though they are the most far on flat earth what Hey, um so If we I can't recall perfectly the other question But it was something from san diego to hawaii. Can we see hawaii from san diego with a telescope? um No, this was the southern cross thing with san francisco in someone in australia, but then tasmania seeing the southern cross Uh, this person is reacting here that san francisco is between those two apparently on a flat earth Um, so they're supposing you have a flat earth map So they're saying that san francisco is between those two apparently on a flat earth, but they can't see the southern cross But they both do and can't see polaris due to their distance even though they are the most far apart on flatter Okay, I'm just I've already like they can't see polaris when you get a certain Distant south right when you get far enough south you can start to see the southern cross, right? I don't I don't actually understand what the uh question is even asking to be honest, so yeah I would need to hear it all in coherently. It's whatever but I guarantee you it's not it's not like some death blow Maybe it's the one dude email it to me. Maybe it's the one maybe look this this is uh objectively In the top two of all modern-day debates for 2024 That's a fact. There's no just this art that's just proving that Um, but for me personally, I think this sets a bar for the year I think if uh 2024 if we could have debates like this all the time it'd be amazing So I want to thank you both so much Uh for the great time and for hanging out with me For over three hours. Good grief. That's my charlie brown of the day. So uh, what's it gets it? Thank you William Harris. Thank you. I'm heading over to that matters now Thank you everyone for hanging out with us and watching us. You've got one more chance to hit like and subscribe Have a great night


In our next module, we'll be engaging with an important philosophical problem that lies at the intersection of the philosophy of science and epistemology, the theory of knowledge, a problem concerning whether scientific claims aim at absolute truths. This is a question about the status of scientific claims, and it's an important one. For example, according to epistemic relativists, what's true according to one scientific system or framework might not be true according to another scientific system or framework. Now in one sense, this should be utterly unsurprising. Science is after all not like other areas that feature disagreements. What the relativist insists though is that when a scientific claim is true by the lights of one scientific framework but false by the lights of another, then there is no further framework independent vantage point from which to say who is right and who is wrong. In this sense, the relativist gives a negative answer to our question of whether scientific claims aim at absolute truths, where absolute truths are truths that hold for all individuals and at all times regardless of their own commitments or beliefs. Relativism in science is a long history, one which our first speaker Martin Kusch at the University of Vienna will be touching upon in some detail. But first it will be helpful to take a step back from this debate about the status of scientific claims so as to appreciate this debate as it is played out in science as a special case of a more general kind of philosophical question. If two parties, be it scientists, musicians, teachers, friends, differ about whether some claim is true, what bearing does this fact of disagreement have on the matter of how to think about the status of the claim under dispute? Here it will be illuminating to consider a straightforward non-epistemic example described by Herodotus and the Histories concerning funerary customs. Now the custom of the ancient Greeks was always to bury their dead, eating them would have been appalling. The Colations on the other hand honor the dead by eating them and burying them would have been out of the question. Now as Herodotus noticed, each thought the other custom was not merely different but obviously wrong. Their differing funerary customs accordingly led to a disagreement overseen by King Darius of Persia about the right way to honor the dead and it's unclear what if anything could have settled such a disagreement. Perhaps in such circumstances it seems that mutual tolerance is the way forward. Here's a slogan that is often trotted out, bearing the dead is right for the Greeks, eating them is right for the Colations and there is no culture independent sense in which either is right or wrong. Let's think about this kind of reasoning in a bit more detail as it features in debates about morals and on this basis sharpen a bit further what's at issue between the absolutist and the relativist about scientific claims. As moral philosopher James Rachel's has put it, this kind of diversity to relativism thinking abstracted from the Greeks versus Colation case and applied more generally in the domain of morality can be framed as the cultural differences argument. The cultural differences argument says, premise one, different cultures have different moral codes. Conclusion, therefore there is no objective truth and morality right and wrong are only a matter of opinion and opinions vary from culture to culture. Now even if the conclusion is true, the cultural differences argument is not a promising argument and that's the case even though its premise is obviously true. For starters the argument is not valid without an additional premise to the effect that if different cultures have different moral codes then there's no objective or culture independent truth about morality. But this premise is open to various kinds of well-worn objections. One thing we can easily imagine instances where one party to a moral disagreement is simply mistaken for example one party to a moral dispute might lack the right kind of information or the ability to think clearly about the issue at hand in a way that is free from prejudice or bias. But if that's right then it's hard to see how just the fact that two parties to a dispute have different perspectives should lead us to conclude that there is no perspective independent truth of the matter. Now a second reason we should be very hesitant to think that if different cultures have different moral codes then there is no objective truth and morality and that right and wrong are just matters of opinion is this. The fact that different cultures have different moral codes is uncontroversial. The absolutist just like the relativist agrees with this descriptive claim. But relativism is not uncontroversial. That is the claim that right and wrong are just a matter of opinion or perspective is a deep kind of philosophical claim one which many reasonable people reject. And so it should be very surprising of such a claim where to simply follow from a claim that everyone is happy to accept. Let's return now to the scientific case. We've seen that by looking at the case study of moral disagreement that the mere fact that different scientific frameworks issue different verdicts on a particular question isn't itself enough to secure a negative answer to the question of whether scientific claims aspire to absolute truth. Now this is instructive for focusing on our initial question about whether scientific claims aspire to absolute truth. We can see that if considerations about disagreement and diversity of frameworks in science are in a position to motivate relativism rather than absolutism about the status of scientific claims that this won't be just due to the mere fact that such disagreements exist, something that all sides can agree to, but rather due to something else. But what might that be? Consider here a famous dispute in the history of science between Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine concerning the truth of geocentrism, the doctrine that the Earth is the orbital center of the universe. One piece of evidence Galileo had offered against the geocentric model is that moons were spotted orbiting Jupiter. Now this is evidence he acquired through the telescope which counted against the prevailing thought that the Earth was the only center of motion. However, as Cardinal Bellarmine saw it, revealed scripture indicates that geocentrism is correct and so ipso facto the telescope must not be a good source of evidence about the heavens. Notice that in such circumstances Galileo and Bellarmine are not only at odds about the truth of the relevant claim about the moons in Jupiter. Galileo affirmed the existence of the moons orbiting Jupiter while his opponents denied it, but rather they also disagreed about the relevant standards which should be appealed to in order to resolve their disagreement. In such circumstances it looks very difficult for either side to rationally persuade the other side and this is a fact that goes beyond just the fact of scientific disagreement. Rather it's a fact about what certain kinds of deep disagreements can lead to and what they can arguably lead to are dialectical standoffs from which neither party looks to be in a position to rationally budge given the epistemic standards that they accept. Now American philosopher Richard Rorty and his diagnosis of this dispute between Galileo and Bellarmine thought that the fact that neither side was in a position to rationally persuade the other party is a consideration in favor of the view that Galileo was correct according to his epistemic grid. Bellarmine was correct according to his and that there is no further fact of the matter. If this kind of reasoning is right then facts about the impossibility of rational persuasion have a bearing on the matter of whether scientific claims can aspire to absolute truth. And on a slightly different note philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn recognizing that different scientific paradigms have recognized very different kinds of scientific standards has argued that the epistemic authority of a scientific claim is confined to the paradigm that gave rise to it an idea that is more or less shared by other kinds of relativists and which is forcefully disputed by absolutists who take absolutism to be compatible with the actual or possible inability of two sides to rationally resolve deep scientific disagreements. One of the goals of this module covering the status of scientific claims is to work out just what kinds of considerations should really bear importantly on the issue of the status of scientific claims and which should not, something that will be taken up in much more sophistication in the lecture by Martin Kuhn.


Hello, and welcome into the Jackie Boswell show. I'm Joe Wombo, joined now with Jackie Boswell, head coach of the women's basketball team. And coach, you guys get an exciting victory on Wednesday, an important one. And then, unfortunately, unable to follow it up, playing number one team in the conference against Albright on Saturday. Yeah, I mean, I thought we went out on Wednesday on our home floor, were playing with a lot of confidence, and did a really good job on Wednesday. And then, you travel to Albright and give them a lot of credit. They're playing with a lot of confidence as well, and it's their home court. So I thought first half was really good and really competitive. I didn't think we were as competitive in the second half. So we just need to figure that part of it out. But we couldn't dwell on that much longer than the bus ride home, and we need to get back to work today. Yeah, and getting back to work, playing two games at home this week is going to be big and important, having a home crowd there to back you up. Yes, definitely. I alluded to the other day on Wednesday how supportive some of our spring and winter teams have been to us. And that's just so much appreciated. And it does make a huge difference. I know men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, and men's volleyball. And I saw a couple women's teams there as well. And that's just really important to us. And to have two back-to-back home games, I can't even remember the last time that was. But if we can get the crowds back out there again, we'd certainly appreciate that. It certainly is important having the crowds there, but it's also important to get some good wins, good play out of these games. You're playing Messiah first at home, and then Wydener. What are you looking into these competitions? Yeah, I mean, everything at this point now is a must-win. If we can win out, I think mathematically, we still have a chance at possibly second place, which gives us a first-round home game. So us coaches are trying to focus on that part of it and the game plan. And then the flip side of it, we're just trying to keep our players focused on one day at a time and just take care of business. Because if we don't take care of business today, it doesn't get done tomorrow. So we just got to take one day at a time as far as our team is concerned. But they're all important, and this is what you hope that the whole season has prepared you for is the month of February. Right. Work on things today that you can do today, and then tomorrow will come. Correct. She's Jackie Boswell. I'm Joe Wama. This has been the Jackie Boswell Show.


neon splatter RPA laundry tag Anthony Richardson AFC South What a hit for John T? laundry tag laundry tag laundry day dang dude Dang, dude. I have so much laundry in my basket at home. That's just clean. That's just wrinkly Great hit AFC South dude


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards. We're doing the random for 2021 Canadian Immaculate Collection, Triple Autographs, Anthony Edwards, Cade Cunningham, and Zion Williamson. So I'm going to take you over to the random screen. Again, this is the Edwards, Cade, Zion. We have the Timberwolves, the Pistons, and the Pelicans. We're going to roll the dice. Whatever team is on top after three times is going to get the card. So good luck to the three participants. We've got one, two, and three. Going to the Timberwolves. Timberwolves getting that card. So congrats on that. Timberwolves, I'll get this video uploaded to YouTube, and we'll have that card out to you. Thank you again.