The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: FlyingO123 on January 31, 2010, 10:24:06 AM
-
Or even to "FET is plausible", I mean yes, techincally RET could all just be one massive conspiracy, but generally conspiracies are pretty unlikely, so generally you need pretty strong evidence for believing in one.
What evidence is there that is so damning to RET that it becomes more plausible to believe in a mass conspiracy which has sucked in most of the scientific community, navigators and pilots than to believe in RET.
I'm not saying FET can be disproved, or that the conspiracy is not possible, but just that it's not very likely so I wonder what made you guys made the jump from Possible FET to Probable FET.
-
Some people have suggested that they drew their conclusions from a sort of positivist view, which is the philosophical basis of classical pluralism. Basically, it says that the senses are the only source of knowledge, and that no unobservable entities exist (or that they can be counted on beyond a reasonable doubt). While my understanding of this paradigm has always been in the political science realm, it is used in observing scientific phenomenon, or it least it was centuries ago.
The issue is that much of modern science operates with the understanding that many things can only be proven to a theoretical "highly probable" level. This I would argue is the conventionalist view. Nobody but the irrational or the ignorant doubt that cell theory (for the most part) is true, but it can never be "law" because there are holes in the system. Likewise, relativity and space-time are rather unusual concepts, but simplify our understanding of other scientific phenomenon. Gravitons don't really exist ad physical particles but assist us in our understanding of gravity.
The point is, positivism is good for understanding some things, but it cannot be the only approach we take. The positivist flat earthers argue that we can only make conclusions based on empirical observation. Because many of them have not flown internationally or been in space ships, they attribute an infinitely greater likelihood to FET than to RET. When they look out their windows they see a flat earth, and reach their conclusions on the shape of the Earth based on this simple observation.
The problem I see is not in their conclusion, but the method by which they reach their conclusion
EDIT: for more refer to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science
We've been reading a lot of this in my "theories of political research" class. I hope that some people find it enlightening.
-
Or even to "FET is plausible", I mean yes, techincally RET could all just be one massive conspiracy, but generally conspiracies are pretty unlikely, so generally you need pretty strong evidence for believing in one.
What evidence is there that is so damning to RET that it becomes more plausible to believe in a mass conspiracy which has sucked in most of the scientific community, navigators and pilots than to believe in RET.
I'm not saying FET can be disproved, or that the conspiracy is not possible, but just that it's not very likely so I wonder what made you guys made the jump from Possible FET to Probable FET.
They believe in it because of "the Conspiracy". And because of the conspiracy, they are able to invent anything they like to believe about the Earth without having to prove it. For some it's probably experimental argumentation, although I suppose a majority of Flat-Earthers here actually believe the nonsense they promote.