Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Reverend Otis Moss on President Obama’s recent public endorsement of Gay Marriage.


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 563 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

TOZ wrote:
BEHOLD.

Gracious...


LilithsThrall wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

I stand corrected. You in fact did say one thing that was accurate. Gliders and airballoons are in fact not airplanes. Therefore everything else you said must be valid. Well done.

**golfclap**


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

Cuz that's clearly what they're saying.

*eyeroll*
You presented AS AN ACT OF FAITH technological progress gained through the scientific method.

Admit you were wrong so we can move on?

What he clearly said was that NOTHING I've said has been in any way accurate. One of the things I said is that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

As for lift, etc. being demonstrated by experiment, there is, obviously, a HUGE difference between whether or not lift is demonstrated by experiment and, on the other hand, being able to build a device. After all, we may be able to explain how a bird's wing works, but we've not been able to build one.
Being able to actually build an airplane was an act of faith.

As for whether or not that particular kind of faith is -religious- faith, since none of you are able to explain the difference between that kind of faith and religious faith, its pointless to stress such a distinction.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

I stand corrected. You in fact did say one thing that was accurate. Gliders and airballoons are in fact not airplanes. Therefore everything else you said must be valid. Well done.

**golfclap**

We can't discuss the level of accuracy of anything else I said when you are so eager, fervent, in tossing everything out that disagrees with you without any consideration on your part.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

I stand corrected. You in fact did say one thing that was accurate. Gliders and airballoons are in fact not airplanes. Therefore everything else you said must be valid. Well done.

**golfclap**

We can't discuss the level of accuracy of anything else I said when you are so eager, fervent, in tossing everything out that disagrees with you without any consideration on your part.

How I feel about your statements are independent of their accuracy, or lack thereof in this case.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liliths thrall wrote:


Being able to actually build an airplane was an act of faith.

It absolutely was not. It was the judicious application of science and reason to an unknown: the exact OPPOSITE of faith.

The evidence from the wind tunnel suggested that powered flight was possible. Making a reasonable conclusion from the data even if you're not 100% sure is NOT a valid definition of faith. Its not what faith means, and you're deriding the entire process by describing it with the same word that lets you "justify" making stuff up without or in direct contradiction to the evidence. Faith has a narrower meaning than any conclusion. Not all conclusions are equal, trying to treat them as such is ridiculous.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Not all conclusions are equal, trying to treat them as such is ridiculous.

..and yet completely necessary to the "atheism is just another religion" narative.


LilithsThrall wrote:


As for whether or not that particular kind of faith is -religious- faith, since none of you are able to explain the difference between that kind of faith and religious faith, its pointless to stress such a distinction.

Once you stretch the definition of "faith" to mean "believe something may be possible based on a preponderance of empirical evidence, but still espouse some healthy doubts" you've redefined it to a point where it's meaningless in this discussion, where we are attempting to contrast it with doubt and the scientific method.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


As for whether or not that particular kind of faith is -religious- faith, since none of you are able to explain the difference between that kind of faith and religious faith, its pointless to stress such a distinction.
Once you stretch the definition of "faith" to mean "believe something may be possible based on a preponderance of empirical evidence, but still espouse some healthy doubts" you've redefined it to a point where it's meaningless in this discussion, where we are attempting to contrast it with doubt and the scientific method.

There was no evidence at all, let alone a 'preponderance of evidence'.

There were scientific principles which suggested (suggested, not demanded) that such a thing was possible, but there are a lot of things which scientific principles suggest are possible, but have never been done.

The definition of 'science' is NOT 'anything possible'. The fact that building airplanes was possible (a fact we only knew in hindsight, by the way) does not mean that it was done scienifically. The fact that certain scientific principles were used as components of the overall model, does not make the overall model scientific.


LilithsThrall wrote:
There were scientific principles which suggested (suggested, not demanded) that such a thing was possible, but there are a lot of things which scientific principles suggest are possible, but have never been done.

Right. Which is why they attempted a series of experiments. Each with varying levels of success. After each attempt they reexamined what they knew, including new data, to adjust their model. But there was a preponderance of evidence that it was possible to fly: birds fly. If you ascribe the following thought pattern as faith, then you're either ignorant of the basic dictionary definition or being disingenuous (I rather imagine the latter, having some experience with you previously on the boards): "well, we know that birds can fly, and we know that hot air balloons can fly and those are big heavy objects, and we know that these various flying machine models can fly going back to ancient china, I wonder if it's possible for a large machine to fly on the same principles. Let's build one and find out."

That's the scientific method.

You're going to have to show that anything the Wright brothers have done was done on faith, rather than just continually assert it. BNW has done his due diligence in evincing the opposite, so you'll have to somehow show their own words were also inaccurate.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lilith's thrall wrote:
There was no evidence at all, let alone a 'preponderance of evidence'.

This isn't just wrong its willful ignorance.

They tested the model airplanes in the wind tunnel. They knew what shapes would give them X amount of lift/surface area at given speeds. If that x is greater than the weight of the aircraft and the rider you get flight.

Quote:
The definition of 'science' is NOT 'anything possible'. The fact that building airplanes was possible (a fact we only knew in hindsight, by the way) does not mean that it was done scientifically.

The fact that it was done scientifically means it was done scientifically


If you want to talk about faith as a means of inventing human flight Eilmer of Malmesbury makes a better study than the Wright Brothers, but I'll bet the Wrights were educated enough to have heard of Da Vinci's flying machine.

I guess I'm adding my voice to the chorus pointing out that the scientific method exists between faith and certainty, not at either end of that scale.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

. If that x is greater than the weight of the aircraft and the rider you get flight.

That's not true.

It is, in fact, so far from being true that I have to question what you're smoking.

There are many critical factors which emerge with scale. To name one of them, strength requirements and strength potential of building materials (particularly in regards to buffeting forces).


Hitdice wrote:
If you want to talk about faith as a means of inventing human flight Eilmer of Malmesbury makes a better study than the Wright Brothers, but I'll bet the Wrights were educated enough to have heard of Da Vinci's flying machine.

+1 for the flying medieval monk link.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

LilithsThrall wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

. If that x is greater than the weight of the aircraft and the rider you get flight.

That's not true.

LUKE I AM YOUR FATHER.

oh.. wait..

Deny it all you want, thems the facts. Can you explain how its not true?

Quote:


There are many critical factors which emerge with scale. To name one of them, strength requirements and strength potential of building materials (particularly in regards to buffeting forces).

There is an enormous difference between "We may be missing something in our calculations" and "I have faith it will fly!" . You're refusing to see any distinction between ANY level of uncertainty and nothing but faith.

In between is an enormous world of difference, including science. I would be interested in what definition of faith you're using, because i doubt you could separate it from from any other conclusion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

See Lil. It's not just me.

Bignorsewolf,
Save yourself some time and just run head first into a wall. It'll be more productive. Just saying.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
If you want to talk about faith as a means of inventing human flight Eilmer of Malmesbury makes a better study than the Wright Brothers, but I'll bet the Wrights were educated enough to have heard of Da Vinci's flying machine.
+1 for the flying medieval monk link.

I thought it was nuns that fly...


BigNorseWolf wrote:


. You're refusing to see any distinction between ANY level of uncertainty and nothing but faith.

In between is an enormous world of difference, including science. I would be interested in what definition of faith you're using, because i doubt you could separate it from from any other conclusion.

You are using a definition for 'faith' that I'm not familiar with. By the dictionary definition, faith is a belief in something without proof. So, believing something when there is no proof (ie. when there is uncertainty whether that thing is actually true) requires faith.

I don't know where you got your definition. You didn't get it from the dictionary, so where?

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

LilithsThrall wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


. You're refusing to see any distinction between ANY level of uncertainty and nothing but faith.

In between is an enormous world of difference, including science. I would be interested in what definition of faith you're using, because i doubt you could separate it from from any other conclusion.

You are using a definition for 'faith' that I'm not familiar with. By the dictionary definition, faith is a belief in something without proof. So, believing something when there is no proof (ie. when there is uncertainty whether that thing is actually true) requires faith.

I don't know where you got your definition. You didn't get it from the dictionary, so where?

Your problem is that your idea of proof lies in epistemic nihlism, and the only reason for that is precisely so you don't have to concede the field of reason to science. You're redefining proof as absolute proof.

Quote:
faith is a belief in something without proof

proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

As proven earlier the write brothers DID have good evidence that their ideas of human flight were true.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Your problem is that your idea of proof lies in epistemic nihlism,

I'm absolutely not an epistemic nihilist. I've told you that before. But, since all you've got is a hammer, everything must look like a nail to you.


LT, do you have some sort of letter or statement from the Wright brothers to back up your claim?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's about faith, Irontruth :P


Irontruth wrote:
LT, do you have some sort of letter or statement from the Wright brothers to back up your claim?

What claim? That they'd never seen an airplane before they created one?

Scarab Sages Star Voter 2013

Oh my goodness this thread has really gone off the rails! What a monstrous train wreck!! What the heck do the Wright Brothers have to do with a Reverend, a President, and Gay Marriage?


Winterthorn wrote:
Oh my goodness this thread has really gone off the rails! What a monstrous train wreck!! What the heck do the Wright Brothers have to do with a Reverend, a President, and Gay Marriage?

It went off the rails way before the Wright brothers were brought up.

On the very first page, posts like

thejeff wrote:

See, this just proves that Christianity isn't anti-gay, unlike what all the Christ-hating atheists here keep claiming.

Or, maybe this lukewarm acceptance by one pastor in one liberal sect fits in with what most of us have been saying all along: Christianity in general is anti-gay, but there are exceptions.

Those exceptions should be encouraged, but even this one seems mostly aimed at people in his own congregation who are upset about gay rights.

were rushing to turn the thread into an attack instead of praise for something praise worthy.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LT, do you have some sort of letter or statement from the Wright brothers to back up your claim?
What claim? That they'd never seen an airplane before they created one?

You made a claim, that faith was involved in their work. Do you actually have a source for this? Something that they wrote, said, or that someone who knew them said about them?

Everything I'm seeing online seems to point to them using the scientific methods in their work. They requested and received documents from the Smithsonian, they acquired large numbers of scientific journals, were friends with several engineers, etc. They worked very hard for several years to achieve 120 minutes of heavier than air flight. To me that sounds less like faith, and more like dedication.

What evidence do you have that they were working on faith and not compiling evidence that supported their theories?

Also, heavier than air flight has been around for almost 210 million years. Airplanes didn't exist, but birds certain did. Birds are proof that heavier than air flight is possible. BTW, the Wright brothers also studied birds.


Irontruth wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LT, do you have some sort of letter or statement from the Wright brothers to back up your claim?
What claim? That they'd never seen an airplane before they created one?

You made a claim, that faith was involved in their work. Do you actually have a source for this? Something that they wrote, said, or that someone who knew them said about them?

Everything I'm seeing online seems to point to them using the scientific methods in their work. They requested and received documents from the Smithsonian, they acquired large numbers of scientific journals, were friends with several engineers, etc. They worked very hard for several years to achieve 120 minutes of heavier than air flight. To me that sounds less like faith, and more like dedication.

What evidence do you have that they were working on faith and not compiling evidence that supported their theories?

Also, heavier than air flight has been around for almost 210 million years. Airplanes didn't exist, but birds certain did. Birds are proof that heavier than air flight is possible. BTW, the Wright brothers also studied birds.

They had no evidence that an airplane could be built since they'd never seen one that had been built. As for birds, we -still- haven't been able to build a vehicle that flies the way that a bird does. Birds don't have propellers or fixed wings.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That's still only your conjecture and not any direct quote from the Wright brothers that they were acting on faith.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's still only your conjecture and not any direct quote from the Wright brothers that they were acting on faith.

The conjecture, on my part, is that they'd seen no working model of a powered flight vehicle which could take off and land under its own power before they created one.

If that conjecture is false (for example, they'd seen some long lost prototype created by someone else which pre-existed their Kitty Hawke flight), then shift my comments over to that person who designed that prototype.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And you claim that the existence of heavier than air flight beforehand cannot be used as evidence that powered flight was possible, simply because they use different methods?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And you claim that the existence of heavier than air flight beforehand cannot be used as evidence that powered flight was possible, simply because they use different methods?

There are lots of things that animals can do that we -still- can't do (like create artificial spider silk) and we have advantages the Wright brothers didn't (like sophisticated imaging equipment).

So, no, the fact that birds could fly was not evidence that the Wright brothers could build an airplane.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am so glad to see that my warning about getting caught up in semantics went completely unheeded.

It doesn't matter what faith is, nor does it matter if the Wright Bros. had any. That's a stupid conversation.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.

I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Radar? What does that have to do with anything?

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I am so glad to see that my warning about getting caught up in semantics went completely unheeded.

It doesn't matter what faith is, nor does it matter if the Wright Bros. had any. That's a stupid conversation.

Since when do people actually read the posts they're responding to?


Seriously.

LT picked a metaphor, that metaphor wasn't good enough for some. Fifty posts bickering about the fitness of metaphor.

Net progress on the original, already-futile topic of discussion: 0%


LilithsThrall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's still only your conjecture and not any direct quote from the Wright brothers that they were acting on faith.

The conjecture, on my part, is that they'd seen no working model of a powered flight vehicle which could take off and land under its own power before they created one.

If that conjecture is false (for example, they'd seen some long lost prototype created by someone else which pre-existed their Kitty Hawke flight), then shift my comments over to that person who designed that prototype.

I have never before typed this sentence that I am typing now, neither have I seen it ever before. Did I create it with faith or the experience and knowledge I have acquired over my life time?

Your conjecture is about the methods the Wright brothers used to do their work. Either it is just your interpretation of things, or you have evidence to support your claim.

Shadow Lodge

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Net progress on the original, already-futile topic of discussion: 0%

No one posts to advance discussion, merely to satisfy their own ego.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilithsThrall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.
I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?

Huh? Radar? WTF?

It doesn't matter if the Wright brothers knew about previous experiments in heavier then air flight. They used their wind tunnel and ten years experimentation with unpowered gliders to determine that powered flight was possible and design their airplane.

This entire discussion is fast becoming absurd. It does not matter if we are getting details of the invention of airplanes wrong. Us possibly being wrong does not make you right (as Tiny Coffee Golem poited out like half a page ago). The Wright brothers did not need any faith. They could trust in the actual data they had accumulated to know that their airplane would fly.

Also Radar is irrelevant even to this largely irrelevant discussion. Powered, heavier-than-air flight existed for upwards of 40 years before radar. What is your point, because at this point I'm 85% certain you are just trolling.


Ok bad analogy is bad analogy. No need to crucify him for it, no pun intended.
I think the point is they didn't with know 100% certainty that the flier would fly. They trusted that their calculations were correct because math is pretty consistent, and the observable data from tests told them they were on the right track. If this doesn't fit your definition of faith, then say so, and drop it.


The trouble here is that people are more interested in proving LT wrong than in simply disagreeing with what he had to say.

I don't actually care whether the Wright Bros. built their plane in the shape of a cross and powered it on ground up bibles (it seems the former is somewhat true though)...

What was his original assertion?

LT wrote:

Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Hope is desire.

I hope for peace. When I take _action_ which I intend will create peace, despite all rational evidence that such peace is impossible and, perhaps most clearly, when my actions are dangerous to me, that's faith.

Yeah. Okay.

I might contest that faith requires a lack of evidence (since I haven't seen a definition that I've referenced myself that includes that), but otherwise it's a nice thought. Which has no bearing whatsoever on the topic, but we were already off topic.

You guys want to keep going on about the airplane dudes?


TOZ wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Net progress on the original, already-futile topic of discussion: 0%
No one posts to advance discussion, merely to satisfy their own ego.

My ego demands that I call this whole enterprise foolish, while, of course, participating.


Saint Caleth wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.
I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?

Huh? Radar? WTF?

It doesn't matter if the Wright brothers knew about previous experiments in heavier then air flight. They used their wind tunnel and ten years experimentation with unpowered gliders to determine that powered flight was possible and design their airplane.

This entire discussion is fast becoming absurd. It does not matter if we are getting details of the invention of airplanes wrong. Us possibly being wrong does not make you right (as Tiny Coffee Golem poited out like half a page ago). The Wright brothers did not need any faith. They could trust in the actual data they had accumulated to know that their airplane would fly.

Also Radar is irrelevant even to this largely irrelevant discussion. Powered, heavier-than-air flight existed for upwards of 40 years before radar. What is your point, because at this point I'm 85% certain you are just trolling.

I'm not trolling. The poster who brought up Da Vinci's non-existent airplane as evidence of the existence of airplanes before the Wright brothers probably is, though.

Shadow Lodge

I have faith in the LT that has faith in me.


TOZ wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Net progress on the original, already-futile topic of discussion: 0%
No one posts to advance discussion, merely to satisfy their own ego.

Not true. Sometimes I ask questions that I'd like to be answered.


But not often.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.
I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?

Huh? Radar? WTF?

It doesn't matter if the Wright brothers knew about previous experiments in heavier then air flight. They used their wind tunnel and ten years experimentation with unpowered gliders to determine that powered flight was possible and design their airplane.

This entire discussion is fast becoming absurd. It does not matter if we are getting details of the invention of airplanes wrong. Us possibly being wrong does not make you right (as Tiny Coffee Golem poited out like half a page ago). The Wright brothers did not need any faith. They could trust in the actual data they had accumulated to know that their airplane would fly.

Also Radar is irrelevant even to this largely irrelevant discussion. Powered, heavier-than-air flight existed for upwards of 40 years before radar. What is your point, because at this point I'm 85% certain you are just trolling.

I'm not trolling. The poster who brought up Da Vinci's non-existent airplane as evidence of the existence of airplanes before the Wright brothers probably is, though.

That was me who brought up Da Vinci's non-functional flying machine. (Except that it's not exactly non-functional; rather humans don't have the muscles required to power it.)

My point in introducing it was that if the Wrights looked at it and said, "Well, we know that won't work, let's try to figure out why not," they're using the scientific process, not faith, be it religious or the regular kind.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Not to mention they had plenty of proven glider flight to suggest the possibility of powered flight.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

TOZ wrote:
No one posts to advance discussion, merely to satisfy their own ego.

I require a more exclusive audience to satisfy my ego.

Shadow Lodge

I require only myself. Can it get any more exclusive?

451 to 500 of 563 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Reverend Otis Moss on President Obama’s recent public endorsement of Gay Marriage. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.