>>16822607
i think you mean take for granite. who gives a shit if the earth is round or not anyway, what difference does it make to you if earth is round or flat?

>>16822607
>How much of your knowledge can you actually prove
I don't know. Maybe 1%? The modern world sure does expose you to a lot of stuff beyond your personal experience and expertise.

>versus just taking it for granted because of consensus?
I don't take it for granted. Most of it I accept provisionally, knowing it may be wrong. It's not my job to prove or "know" anything (in the strong sense) that doesn't directly concern me, just to curate information based on factors like how easy it would be to lie (or be mistaken) about a thing, who benefits from having me believe one thing vs. another, recognizing how many layers of interpretation on top of raw data a supposed "fact" is, understanding the general limits of knowledge etc.

>>16822607
Most I'd say. With a higher education you gain not only knowledge but the ability to understand the knowledge.

>>16822643
With higher education, the main thing you get is crippled metacognition and severe delusions.

>>16822647
Ah, you're one of those.

>>16822648
>immediately goes on to demonstrate my point

>>16822653
Damn, you really got butthurt from that comment.

>>16822655
>comment.
Like clockwork.

>>16822643
Name a piece of nontrivial modern knowledge about the world that you think you know.

>>16822607
Of all human knowledge? Probably very little. I can demonstrate a chunk of it, but not all of it. Probably less than 1%.
>Earth is round
This is actually one of the part I could prove
>Moon landing happened
Given this was a singular event I, personally, literally can't prove it. I wasn't there and I wasn't involved. There's no experiment I can run that can show that humans landed on the moon in 1969. All I can say is it's part of the historical record, there video footage of the rocket launch and of astronauts on the moon. Moreover there's a bunch of tracking data from various radio telescopes around the world. Someone could prove it, all you'd have to do is build a rocket and offer tours. However, then you could argue that doesn't actually prove anything, since the landing sites could have been set up the day before the tour happened.

>>16822667
the thing about the moonlandings is that theres no reason it couldn't have been done. there not technological or physical barrier to why it couldn't have been carried out just as described. A lack of understanding about what was required and how those problems were solved makes up the foundation of this kind of denial

File: file.png (3.89 MB, 3000x3000)

3.89 MB PNG

>>16822643
A lot of higher education is just taking the word of dead people much smarter than you and hoping that consensus backs you up.

I think it would be similar to pic related. You have a general idea of how things work, but could you actually prove it?

>>16822729
>>16822667
It's not so much about denial but, starting from a place of complete neutrality, could you prove it happened?

A singular event is hard to prove, but a lower hanging fruit would be proving that humans have been to the moon at all. My understanding is there are reflectors on the moon you could use to do that, but I only happen to know that as a bit of trivia. Not how to use them or how I could use that to actually prove humans have been there.

>>16822643
Fake and gay

>>16822975
>Not how to use them or how I could use that to actually prove humans have been there.
you cant, not with reference to the retroreflectors. the russians placed their using remote controlled vehicles (though they were not placed as accurately as the US counterparts, and couldnt be detected for many years).
Proving any historical event isn't straight forward if someone is willing to arbitrarily call things fake, but when the entire range of evidence for the moonlandings is taken into consideration, and the many silly objections made against them are dismissed (as they are, easily), then the only sensible position to take is that they did in fact take place. That there is no technological or physical barrier to carrying out the missions is not another argument in their favor.

>>16822975
>could you prove it happened?
Yes quite trivially. The issue comes from the schizos "complete neutrality" being a series of increasingly unhinged denials of reality and calling everything you present as evidence as either fake or asking to prove that evidence is real and then calling that fake or asking to prove that evidence is fake. It's much easier to close your eyes and ears and scream fake than it is to convince someone who is doing that to stop. So much so that attempt would instantly label you as a fool. A standard exhaustion strategy, you deny deny deny until the other person tires and then claim victory as the sole survivor.
For instance there's hours of footage and thousands of images that are self consistent with each other and all prove that they were taken on the moon due to things like no atmosphere over long distance parallax of the background, the timing of dust particles flying and their trajectories and the fact that we and the soviets and everyone else observed the rockets going out and coming back in. We also have later satellite pictures that confirm the earlier pictures and the landing sites look like they did in the photos and so on and so on. You will then proceed to call that veritable mountain of evidence, the only way which it could have possibly been forged if aliens set up a film studio on the moon and then our boys just went there and picked the images up from the greys, fake or asking to prove that the evidence isn't also true.
At that point the only thing your "complete neutrality" deserves is a kick to the nuts.
This entire thread is just "asking questions" level of stupid. I could easily prove almost anything of human knowledge that's on the level of moon landings provided you pay me for the effort, no I won't do it for free and no that doesn't prove me wrong and something being expensive to prove doesn't mean it's fake either. Just asking to prove the proof or denying it was proven isn't evidence against the proof.

>>16823098
You seem to have a very paranoid and conspiratorial mind. And particularly about the moon landing for some reason.

This isn't a "just asking questions" thread about anything in particular.

>>16823144
The posted I responded to talked about the moon landing. Notice that you didn't address any of the evidence mentioned in the post either.
>This isn't a "just asking questions" thread about anything in particular.
That's actually one of the core characters of "just asking questions" strategy. The entire point is to be malleable enough that every time you get blown out you can just pivot into a new thing. Presenting ideas of your own is considered a weakness because it exposes you to being proven incorrect. Instead the attack is performed entirely with asking more and more questions.

>>16823166
The moon landing was an example. I know you're 70IQ, but it isn't hard to understand why it was used in context (hint: this isn't a "da moon landing was fake" thread")
>That's actually one of the core characters of "just asking questions" strategy.
No, you're just retarded. Since your brain gets broken by anything other people actually argue with, try this very simple question:
>can you prove the pythagorean theorem?
now try and expand that thought to the millions of other things you take for granted

>>16823184
>The moon landing was an example
Which is why I used it as an example to demonstrate the point. I don't see you addressing the evidence still.
>can you prove the Pythagorean theorem?
Yes
>now try and expand that thought to the millions of other things you take for granted
Which one in particular. Be specific and don't backpedal when I say that I can prove it.

>>16823098
>there's hours of footage and thousands of images that are self consistent with each other and all prove that they were taken on the moon
Prove it.

Faking the entire apollo project and getting everyone involved to lie about it consistently would be harder than going to the moon.
Most gov conspiracies get exposed. Northwoods, iran contra, gov drug smuggling, bay of pigs, all conspiracies that got acknowledged and exposed. Much worse than the moon landing.
The next thing that will be exposed is all the UFOs the government pretends to be ayylmaos is actually government aircraft.

>nah bro the earth is flat *and* ayyliens live under the earth and above the earth dome despite all evidence against such notions

>>16823208
Didn't ask.

>>16823098
>there's hours of footage and thousands of images that are self consistent with each other and all prove that they were taken on the moon
Prove it.

>retards hyperfocused on whether the moonlanding is fake and other conspiracies rather than the actual question in the OP
jesus christ /sci/ has gone downhill

>OP implies pop-sci fags lack the metacognition needed to reflect on the reliability of one's "knowledge"
>someone mentions the moon landing "hoax"(?)
>pop-sci fags immediately demonstrate lack of said metacognition
>lose the argument but can't understand why they failed
>REEEEEEE YOU CAN'T USE THIS EXAMPLE TO MAKE YOUR POINT REEEE
lole

>>16823258
it really is sad how far this board has fallen.
instead of the uk's digital id, /sci/ should require google scholar verification with at least 100 citations as a bare minimum to participate

>>16823245
OP not only got immediately obliterated by posts 1-3 (like almost always with garbage threads) directly but is wrong on a fundamental level on two different ways. First by choosing examples that he then proceeds to get immediately obliterated on which demonstrates his inability to start a thread. Second by picking examples that anyone who is past 9th grade can easily demonstrate to be true and specifically on a board that regularly gets raided by people asking specifically for those proofs (with this this thread almost certainly is one of those in yet another poor disguise) so everyone is naturally familiar with the proofs more than the average meatbag. Out of the 4 examples 3 are popular raid topics and all 4 are trivial to prove to anyone who is of sufficient age to browse this website. If OP didn't wish to discuss these specific topics he probably shouldn't have brought them up himself.
Ultimately OP had nothing more than a classic you can't know nuthing philospohy backing a "missing proof" thread where no level of proof would ever satisfy him, he would simply ask for the proofs to be proven ad infinitum. Asking questions is a super power with people like this.
/sci/ sure has gone downhill because OP made a thread like this and thought it would be a good one.

>>16823320
>obliterated by posts 1-3
>meme post
>someone likely accurately assessing their abilities
>someone likely memeing, otherwise vastly overestimating themselves
>obliterated
lol

I'm sorry you are unable to keep up with a basic level metacognition thread.

>>16823323
The fact that you don't even understand why you got blown out so badly speaks volumes of your so called metacognition but does also explain your choice of examples and why you threw a hissy fit when you got blown out.

>>16822607
as kings of all things non linear delete this its pure alpha in terms of intuition on approaches stochastic problems like PA ok? thank you

>>16822607
Depends on the type of knowledge. If it's historical events I would have trouble proving much. If it's basic science (evolution, statics, mechanics, atomic theory, electromagnetism, metallurgy, the rock cycle, the water cycle, basic particle physics, mendelevian inheritance, etc.) It really wouldn't be that hard.

>>16822607
Maybe 10-20% of it. Most of my knowledge is gathered from lived experience or otherwise empirical, so it's not "provable" in the sense you're asking.

>>16823098
Are these schizos in the room with you now?

>>16822607
>How much of your knowledge can you actually prove versus just taking it for granted because of consensus?
Do you want a comprehensive listing or is an annotated estimate sufficient? I can do a quick meta-analysis of my peers.

>>16825433
>muh peer review

>>16825740
So sorry. Thanks for playing.
Better luck next time.

>>16825844
i was joking. can see how it wasn't obvious

>>16825887
No do-overs.

>>16822607
>can these things be proven? no.
>can you believe them out of fear of the group, wanting to fit in? yes.
the place of undecidedness, of indeterminacy, is actually a good thing, it is the uncollapsed quantum waveform of God (you).
only the fundamentals of metaphysics, mathematics, geometry and psychology are real, everything else is just a dream, essentially.
science is mostly a game you play for fun and/or career,
any truth that can be disproven by IMAGINARY counter example lacks substance and is insignificant.
because every imaginable thing is real

also what is proof? that your senses validate something? how can you validate that? why would that make it real?
what is real? (everything is real and unreal simultaneously)

>>16822620
>take for granite
You must be at least 18 to post here.

>>16822607
Wait until you learn that the whole scientific community just uses CO2 level as a basis for temperature in fossil records.

The whole game was rigged from the start.

>>16826331
>imaginary things are real
(P ^ ~P) -> Q, every single time.