The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: rotating planet on March 01, 2011, 07:57:10 PM
-
In FET, how were people "tricked" into thinking the earth was round?(because at some point in time, before the conspiracies, some epople must have believed the world was round)
-
All things being as so, the long answer is not the correct answer follows a simple path.
-
It's always been the other way around.
-
All things being as so, the long answer is not the correct answer follows a simple path.
... what? ???
Sentence fragments confuse me.
-
Your assumption is that it is a fragmented sentence.
-
How would you phrase it?
-
All things being as so, the long answer is not the correct answer follows a simple path.
Lurk moar...in English class.
-
How would you phrase it?
Well that's the problem; I hardly even know what you said in the first place. Oh, and nice double post.
Maybe something like
All things being as so, the long answer is not the correct answer follows a simple path.
All things said, the longest and most complicated is not necessarily the correct answer; often the correct answer is the most simple, which is essentially Occam's Razor.
-
What you have said and what I have are none in the same.
-
What you have said and what I have are none in the same.
Bullhorn, what is your native language? Would it help to maybe say what you want in that language and see if anyone here can translate it?
-
Your offer is warm, as is the snow grain window, under a heath of heart.
-
Your offer is warm, as is the snow grain window, under a heath of heart.
That's beautiful. Could you please rephrase the original cryptic statement you made so we can understand it?
-
Your offer is warm, as is the snow grain window, under a heath of heart.
That's beautiful. Could you please rephrase the original cryptic statement you made so we can understand it?
Is it? My eye twitched in disgust at trying to understand it. If this is beauty...
-
Your offer is warm, as is the snow grain window, under a heath of heart.
Stop trying to hard to sound smart. Rephrase your original statement so we "normies" can understand you.
-
Your offer is warm, as is the snow grain window, under a heath of heart.
That's beautiful. Could you please rephrase the original cryptic statement you made so we can understand it?
Is it? My eye twitched in disgust at trying to understand it. If this is beauty...
Maybe in the future I'll ring a bell every time I'm being sarcastic, or something. :P
Isn't Bullhorn the raindrop guy? That should tell us something right there.
-
Were you tricked? How? ???
-
Your offer is warm, as is the snow grain window, under a heath of heart.
That's beautiful. Could you please rephrase the original cryptic statement you made so we can understand it?
Is it? My eye twitched in disgust at trying to understand it. If this is beauty...
Maybe in the future I'll ring a bell every time I'm being sarcastic, or something. :P
That would be appreciated ;D
And using blunt sarcasm on the net in regards to some attempted poetry is bound to fool a few.
-
:)
-
:)
Smiley spam is cool but are you going to clarify anything, or...
-
:)
Smiley spam is cool but are you going to clarify anything, or...
I still understand that better than
All things being as so, the long answer is not the correct answer follows a simple path.
-
In FET, how were people "tricked" into thinking the earth was round?(because at some point in time, before the conspiracies, some epople must have believed the world was round)
They weren't tricked, they were mistaken.
-
Sure, but how?
-
Sure, but how?
They simply incorrectly interpreted the data, guided by their bias toward RE.
-
No i mean originally
-
No i mean originally
Can you be more specific?
-
No i mean originally
Can you be more specific?
What about before there was a RE bias? Remember that there was an FE bias before there was an RE bias.
-
That is what i meant
-
No i mean originally
Can you be more specific?
What about before there was a RE bias? Remember that there was an FE bias before there was an RE bias.
The best I can figure is that the Greeks got it into their heads that the Earth was a sphere, because spheres are such perfect geometric constructs and they fallaciously believed that the underlying forces behind the universe as we know it must be perfect and produce perfect things (despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary). Aristotle took up the cause; Christianity came to depend on Aristotle's metaphysical philosophy. And voila: a bias that would cripple scientific progress for centuries was born, predictably thanks in no small part to organized religion.
-
I read that the church believed in a flat earth? ???
-
I read that the church believed in a flat earth? ???
Well then you read wrong. It's a fairly common misconception about the early Church.
-
than why was Copernicus persecuted?
-
than why was Copernicus persecuted?
He wasn't, really. But you're probably referring to his assertion that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the Earth remaining fixed in space, as was the Christian (and, of course, Aristotelian) view, for which he did receive a small amount of criticism and scorn.
-
Copernicus wasn't persecuted for believing in a round earth. The issue of the day was geocentricism which he managed to tip toe around as well. It was Galileo who was persecuted for pushing heliocentricism before the church was ready for it.
-
The best I can figure
See this is where your flaw is. You don't know, you're simply asserting something you believe must be the case in order for your theories to keep treading water.
is that the Greeks got it into their heads that the Earth was a sphere, because spheres are such perfect geometric constructs and they fallaciously believed that the underlying forces behind the universe as we know it must be perfect and produce perfect things
Greeks took to the beauty of rectangles in the gold ratio, so does this mean they should also believe the Earth is rectangular?
(despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
I assume you're talking about the imperfections of the overall shape of our Earth. The sun and moon look pretty spherical, so one would assume the Earth would be spherical too. The theory of gravity predicts all large masses would fall into a roughly spherical form, and the theory of UA... well... it doesn't seem to explain how the Earth can form into a cylindrical shape while all other bodies in the sky are spherical.
Aristotle took up the cause; Christianity came to depend on Aristotle's metaphysical philosophy. And voila: a bias that would cripple scientific progress for centuries was born, predictably thanks in no small part to organized religion.
Science is no longer bounded by religious agenda. Instead it now faces ethical and monetary barriers that it needs to overcome.
Whatever dents religion has caused in science in the past has merely become a learning experience of our past mistakes.
-
The best I can figure is that the Greeks got it into their heads that the Earth was a sphere, because spheres are such perfect geometric constructs and they fallaciously believed that the underlying forces behind the universe as we know it must be perfect and produce perfect things (despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
This is made startlingly clear by reading Pythagorean, Platonic and Aristotelian works. The foundation of modern astronomy is the centuries old musing of Greek sophists.
-
The best I can figure
See this is where your flaw is. You don't know, you're simply asserting something you believe must be the case in order for your theories to keep treading water.
The first recorded globularists were Greek philosophers. There are many extant copies of these documents needing only to be read by you to understand this.
-
The first recorded globularists were Greek philosophers. There are many extant copies of these documents needing only to be read by you to understand this.
And? Are you trying to say that because some Greek philosophers thought the Earth might be round thousands of years ago that we only believe the Earth is round today because of them?
The scientists of today aren't philosophers, nor do they ever 'believe' in a theory. If a theory is found to have any holes in it, then new theories arise to explain what is missing. Mainstream science has a good track record of this. For example, Newtonian mechanics was considered flawless for nearly 200 years, and once the Michelson-Morley Experiment found a hole in it, Einstein brought on a new theory. Why were his theories actually considered and peer reviewed which revolutionized the Science of the time as opposed to Samuel Rowbotham's work? It actually filled in the gaps.
Round Earth Theory has no gaps, and to consider an alternative that raises more questions than it answers is just a waste of effort.
-
The best I can figure
See this is where your flaw is. You don't know, you're simply asserting something you believe must be the case in order for your theories to keep treading water.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. What's your point, exactly? ???
is that the Greeks got it into their heads that the Earth was a sphere, because spheres are such perfect geometric constructs and they fallaciously believed that the underlying forces behind the universe as we know it must be perfect and produce perfect things
Greeks took to the beauty of rectangles in the gold ratio, so does this mean they should also believe the Earth is rectangular?
Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating how deeply flawed the Greeks' thinking was.
(despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
I assume you're talking about the imperfections of the overall shape of our Earth. The sun and moon look pretty spherical, so one would assume the Earth would be spherical too.
Well, my good sir, if I may say, there's your problem. If your aim is to prove to me that the RE model is the correct one, I'd ask you to do better than make assumptions.
The theory of gravity predicts all large masses would fall into a roughly spherical form, and the theory of UA... well... it doesn't seem to explain how the Earth can form into a cylindrical shape while all other bodies in the sky are spherical.
The theory of gravity is demonstrably false, while the theory of UA is based on sound empirical evidence anybody can duplicate for himself.
Aristotle took up the cause; Christianity came to depend on Aristotle's metaphysical philosophy. And voila: a bias that would cripple scientific progress for centuries was born, predictably thanks in no small part to organized religion.
Science is no longer bounded by religious agenda. Instead it now faces ethical and monetary barriers that it needs to overcome.
Amen to that. Modern science is so strongly motivated by profit one can't help but wonder how much research can really be trusted.
-
The best I can figure
See this is where your flaw is. You don't know, you're simply asserting something you believe must be the case in order for your theories to keep treading water.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. What's your point, exactly? ???
You're making assumptions.
is that the Greeks got it into their heads that the Earth was a sphere, because spheres are such perfect geometric constructs and they fallaciously believed that the underlying forces behind the universe as we know it must be perfect and produce perfect things
Greeks took to the beauty of rectangles in the gold ratio, so does this mean they should also believe the Earth is rectangular?
Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating how deeply flawed the Greeks' thinking was.
Given the tools at their disposal and the fact that they too are humans with a thirst for answers, I'm not at all surprised that they took to philosophy. I actually commend them for at least putting their minds to it, rather than just taking the easy road as most of the world did with religion.
(despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
I assume you're talking about the imperfections of the overall shape of our Earth. The sun and moon look pretty spherical, so one would assume the Earth would be spherical too.
Well, my good sir, if I may say, there's your problem. If your aim is to prove to me that the RE model is the correct one, I'd ask you to do better than make assumptions.
I made a logical assumption, but that is not why RET > FET. I couldn't possibly base the validity of RET solely on how logical it sounds, as there are many examples in nature of how logical conclusions are often false. It was merely a starting point.
The theory of gravity predicts all large masses would fall into a roughly spherical form, and the theory of UA... well... it doesn't seem to explain how the Earth can form into a cylindrical shape while all other bodies in the sky are spherical.
The theory of gravity is demonstrably false, while the theory of UA is based on sound empirical evidence anybody can duplicate for himself.
Please, demonstrate it. And if you actually took the time to study physics you would learn that you can't tell whether the Earth is moving to your feet, you're moving to the Earth or both in our reference frame. So you can't conclude whether it's gravity or UA based on that alone. Try again.
Aristotle took up the cause; Christianity came to depend on Aristotle's metaphysical philosophy. And voila: a bias that would cripple scientific progress for centuries was born, predictably thanks in no small part to organized religion.
Science is no longer bounded by religious agenda. Instead it now faces ethical and monetary barriers that it needs to overcome.
Amen to that. Modern science is so strongly motivated by profit one can't help but wonder how much research can really be trusted.
Again, the scientists of today aren't philosophers. Philosophers had no resources at their disposal. Scientists have a limited amount, but it's not nothing. Multi-billion dollar investments have been made into scientific research, and you are shrugging this off as though it's nothing. As though scientists can't definitively answer whether the Earth is round or flat... That's ridiculous and you know it.
-
The best I can figure
See this is where your flaw is. You don't know, you're simply asserting something you believe must be the case in order for your theories to keep treading water.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. What's your point, exactly? ???
You're making assumptions.
As long as those assumptions are plausible, this should not matter in the slightest. You're trying to prove to me that the Earth is round; I'm not trying to prove anything to you. My only aim is to show how FE can be seen as a plausible alternative to the standard model.
is that the Greeks got it into their heads that the Earth was a sphere, because spheres are such perfect geometric constructs and they fallaciously believed that the underlying forces behind the universe as we know it must be perfect and produce perfect things
Greeks took to the beauty of rectangles in the gold ratio, so does this mean they should also believe the Earth is rectangular?
Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating how deeply flawed the Greeks' thinking was.
Given the tools at their disposal and the fact that they too are humans with a thirst for answers, I'm not at all surprised that they took to philosophy. I actually commend them for at least putting their minds to it, rather than just taking the easy road as most of the world did with religion.
Ancient Greek philosophy really wasn't much better than religion.
(despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
I assume you're talking about the imperfections of the overall shape of our Earth. The sun and moon look pretty spherical, so one would assume the Earth would be spherical too.
Well, my good sir, if I may say, there's your problem. If your aim is to prove to me that the RE model is the correct one, I'd ask you to do better than make assumptions.
I made a logical assumption, but that is not why RET > FET. I couldn't possibly base the validity of RET solely on how logical it sounds, as there are many examples in nature of how logical conclusions are often false. It was merely a starting point.
Again, I have to question the wisdom using an assumption as the starting point of an argument you're trying to make. But it may be a simple difference in our scientific philosophies; as a zeteticist I strongly oppose assumptions, at any stage of scientific inquiry.
The theory of gravity predicts all large masses would fall into a roughly spherical form, and the theory of UA... well... it doesn't seem to explain how the Earth can form into a cylindrical shape while all other bodies in the sky are spherical.
The theory of gravity is demonstrably false, while the theory of UA is based on sound empirical evidence anybody can duplicate for himself.
Please, demonstrate it.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
And if you actually took the time to study physics you would learn that you can't tell whether the Earth is moving to your feet, you're moving to the Earth or both in our reference frame. So you can't conclude whether it's gravity or UA based on that alone. Try again.
As is the case with most of us here who take the FE side, I am well aware of the equivalence principle. It's irrelevant to the statement I made.
Aristotle took up the cause; Christianity came to depend on Aristotle's metaphysical philosophy. And voila: a bias that would cripple scientific progress for centuries was born, predictably thanks in no small part to organized religion.
Science is no longer bounded by religious agenda. Instead it now faces ethical and monetary barriers that it needs to overcome.
Amen to that. Modern science is so strongly motivated by profit one can't help but wonder how much research can really be trusted.
Again, the scientists of today aren't philosophers. Philosophers had no resources at their disposal. Scientists have a limited amount, but it's not nothing. Multi-billion dollar investments have been made into scientific research, and you are shrugging this off as though it's nothing. As though scientists can't definitively answer whether the Earth is round or flat... That's ridiculous and you know it.
I have yet to see this magical proof you claim exists (and seem to pretentiously think is obvious) that the Earth is not flat.
-
The best I can figure
See this is where your flaw is. You don't know, you're simply asserting something you believe must be the case in order for your theories to keep treading water.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. What's your point, exactly? ???
You're making assumptions.
It is not an assumption that Hellenist philosophers decided that the earth and the heavens are round because it is the perfect shape and the cosmos must be perfect. It is fact.
That is the true and 'perfect' answer to the question asked: How did the people come to be mistaken about the shape of the earth before there was a globular bias?
-
Ancient Greek philosophy really wasn't much better than religion.
I think that you had better brush up on Ancient Greek philosophy.
The Ancient Greek philosophical tradition broke away from a mythological approach to explaining the world, and it initiated an approach based on reason and evidence. Initially concerned with explaining the entire cosmos, the Presocratic philosophers strived to identify its single underlying principle. Their theories were diverse and none achieved a consensus, yet their legacy was the initiation of the quest to identify underlying principles.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
Fixed.
-
Ancient Greek philosophy really wasn't much better than religion.
I think that you had better brush up on Ancient Greek philosophy.
The Ancient Greek philosophical tradition broke away from a mythological approach to explaining the world, and it initiated an approach based on reason and evidence. Initially concerned with explaining the entire cosmos, the Presocratic philosophers strived to identify its single underlying principle. Their theories were diverse and none achieved a consensus, yet their legacy was the initiation of the quest to identify underlying principles.
Most of what they did was guess. Why are there flies around rotting meat? According to Aristotle, of course, they spontaneously generated in the meat. I didn't say it was as bad as religion, I said it wasn't much better.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
Fixed.
OOPS.
-
The theory of gravity is demonstrably false, while the theory of UA is based on sound empirical evidence anybody can duplicate for himself.
Please, demonstrate it.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
Wasn't this explained in Einstein's theory of General Relativity?
The theory of gravity is demonstrably false, while the theory of UA is based on sound empirical evidence anybody can duplicate for himself.
And if you actually took the time to study physics you would learn that you can't tell whether the Earth is moving to your feet, you're moving to the Earth or both in our reference frame. So you can't conclude whether it's gravity or UA based on that alone. Try again.
As is the case with most of us here who take the FE side, I am well aware of the equivalence principle. It's irrelevant to the statement I made.
You're claiming that gravity can be demonstrated to be false. Support this claim.
And just because it seems more desirable to answer how we accelerate to the ground with the ground accelerating up towards us (since we experience this often in everyday life such as in cars etc.) it doesn't mean it's the only known way objects can accelerate towards others. If the idea of mass attracting is so preposterous to you, then why do you accept electric and magnetic attraction without any doubts? Do you accept strong and weak nuclear forces? And with all these difference forces that can act from a distance, gravity still seems impossible to you?
I have yet to see this magical proof you claim exists (and seem to pretentiously think is obvious) that the Earth is not flat.
Right, I can't. There is no proof in science. We as humans must acknowledge this fact and use our powers of reason and logic to come to the most sensible answer. Why do you think philosophers broke away from the religious stance?
-
The theory of gravity is demonstrably false, while the theory of UA is based on sound empirical evidence anybody can duplicate for himself.
Please, demonstrate it.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
Wasn't this explained in Einstein's theory of General Relativity?
Yes, it was. But it was not explained by Newtonian gravity. You may need to lurk moar to realize that there is a difference between Newtonian gravity and gravitation as described by GR that some members here can be rather pedantic about.
-
It is not an assumption that Hellenist philosophers decided that the earth and the heavens are round because it is the perfect shape and the cosmos must be perfect. It is fact.
That is the true and 'perfect' answer to the question asked: How did the people come to be mistaken about the shape of the earth before there was a globular bias?
Do you have a citation for this? As far as I'm aware, the heavens were believed to be perfect, so the incorrect assumption was made that the orbits of planets had to be circular. I'm not aware of any evidence that they had similar logic for the shape of the Earth. Indeed, a large bit of Greek philosophy emphasizes the imperfect nature of the Earth, so if anything they should have been inclined to believe that the Earth was a shape that wasn't the perfect shape.
-
Pythagoras held the belief (or it has been anciently ascribed to him -- none of his works survive) that there is a center sphere of fire in addition to the spherical earth, the observed celestial bodies and a counter-earth. Burkhert, among others, calls Pythagorean cosmology numerical "mythology in scientific clothing."
-
Pythagoras held the belief (or it has been anciently ascribed to him -- none of his works survive) that there is a center sphere of fire in addition to the spherical earth, the observed celestial bodies and a counter-earth. Burkhert, among others, calls Pythagorean cosmology numerical "mythology in scientific clothing."
Yes. That doesn't answer the claim in question. The relevant claim is that they thought that the Earth was spherical because the sphere was the perfect shape. That's what needs a citation.
-
It was all numerical. They observed similarities between things numerical and nature. This was the quintessence of Pythagorean thought. Their whole cosmology was of numeric constructs observed or not. The counter- or anti-earth is a splendid example of that. They used numbers not as an analogy for instruction or understanding, but numbers were the things (monades) themselves. Aristotle says, "They construct the whole heavens out of numbers but not out of monades."
Edit:
You seem to be saying that they thought everything else was numeric, but had deduced the earth was round by some sort of empiricism wholly foreign to them. The method of divining the shape of the earth, the universe (heavens), the celestial bodies, the hearth, the paths of the celestial bodies about the hearth, et al are all one and the same; they are inseparable.
-
It was all numerical. They observed similarities between things numerical and nature. This was the quintessence of Pythagorean thought. Their whole cosmology was of numeric constructs observed or not. The counter- or anti-earth is a splendid example of that. They used numbers not as an analogy for instruction or understanding, but numbers were the things (monades) themselves. Aristotle says, "They construct the whole heavens out of numbers but not out of monades."
Edit:
You seem to be saying that they thought everything else was numeric, but had deduced the earth was round by some sort of empiricism wholly foreign to them. The method of divining the shape of the earth, the universe (heavens), the celestial bodies, the hearth, the paths of the celestial bodies about the hearth, et al are all one and the same; they are inseparable.
This is is both a) historically not accurate and b) doesn't answer the concern in question. I said absolutely nothing about anything being "numeric"- just about the claim about the Earth being a sphere coming from philosophical considerations. And point of fact, many of the ancients were fine with empirical observation. Although some of them were much less so than others (Aristotle for example was not a fan) Aristarchus is one of many examples. Indeed, the word "empiric" even comes from a Greek word describing using empirical observation (although in the original context it was more about medicine than anything else). While it is true that some of the ancient Greek beliefs about the Earth being round were based on philosophical, non-empirical claims, that's distinct from the claim being made that it was due to the belief that the sphere was the perfect shape. There's very little evidence for that claim. In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round. There's very little in the extant texts that actually helps here.
In fact, while we're on the subject, you earlier said that:
This is made startlingly clear by reading Pythagorean, Platonic and Aristotelian works. The foundation of modern astronomy is the centuries old musing of Greek sophists.
In fact, Aristotle's texts are some of the oldest texts we have which apply empirical arguments for a round Earth (among other things he pointed out the changing visibility of stars as being best explained by a round Earth). We have almost no Pythagorean texts (Pythagoras lived around 500 BCE. The only related direct texts we have are much later Neo-Pythagorean texts from around 200 BCE). So I'm not at all sure what you are talking about here.
The bottom line: The Ancient Greeks may have had philosophical reasons for favoring a round Earth. We don't know. But there's no evidence that they thought the Earth was a sphere due to their believed perfection of the sphere. And Pythagorean beliefs about the nature of numbers have zero to do with anything in any case.
-
In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round.
According to Plato's Timaeus, the Creator "made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures"
Sounds like a pretty solid endorsement of Ski's point to me.
-
This is is both a) historically not accurate
What aspect of Pythagorean thought are you disputing?
I said absolutely nothing about anything being "numeric"-- just about the claim about the Earth being a sphere coming from philosophical considerations.
They are the same. :-\ Pythagoreans were both numerists and philosophers. Their philosophy was wholly numeric.
And point of fact, many of the ancients were fine with empirical observation.
Few, and they were not the originators of globularism which was the question asked.
While it is true that some of the ancient Greek beliefs about the Earth being round were based on philosophical, non-empirical claims, that's distinct from the claim being made that it was due to the belief that the sphere was the perfect shape.
Not when globularism is seen from the eyes of the Pythagoreans who believed the sphere to be perfect. Other Greeks (Plato, notably) borrowed this belief. Aristotle claims that before Plato there was no distinction between mathematics and the physical, visible world or form and being.
In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round. There's very little in the extant texts that actually helps here.
Because we insist on trying to find science in mysticism instead of reading the plain text.
In fact, while we're on the subject, you earlier said that:
This is made startlingly clear by reading Pythagorean, Platonic and Aristotelian works. The foundation of modern astronomy is the centuries old musing of Greek sophists.
We have almost no Pythagorean texts ...
We have precisely no Pythagorean texts if by Pythagorean you mean texts attributed directly to Pythagoras.
The only related direct texts we have are much later Neo-Pythagorean texts from around 200 BCE). So I'm not at all sure what you are talking about here.
We have Platonic texts (Plato being heavily versed in Pythagorean thought), the references of Aristotle to the Pythagoreans (generally not complimentary) and the Neo-Pythagorean writings. From the body of these we can see the Pythagoreans were numerists not scientists and that globularism originated therein and not from empiricism. It is also well documented that Pythagoras (or his followers) (and later Plato) thought the sphere was the perfect shape, and hence the cosmos of Phythagorean mythos.
In fact, Aristotle's texts are some of the oldest texts we have which apply empirical arguments for a round Earth
Aristotle was a giant leap forward to empiricism, yet the belief predates him substantially. He inherited the belief in a round world and offered his evidence for it. This is, to answer the question again, why people believed the world was round before any modern conspiracy. Whether they believed this based on numerism, as the Pythagoreans, or inherited the belief from them, the ancient Hellenists were simply mistaken.
The bottom line: The Ancient Greeks may have had philosophical reasons for favoring a round Earth. We don't know. But there's no evidence that they thought the Earth was a sphere due to their believed perfection of the sphere. And Pythagorean beliefs about the nature of numbers have zero to do with anything in any case.
Again, you are dividing the issue where there can be no division (atleast in the case of the Pythagoreans). The later sophists simply expounded on this erroneous belief.
Edit: quote failure
-
In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round.
According to Plato's Timaeus, the Creator "made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures"
Sounds like a pretty solid endorsement of Ski's point to me.
The point is so thoroughly made in the body of related writings, I'm having difficulty trying to understand the possible reasons for disbelief or misunderstanding concerning it.
Any difficulty understanding why they believed the Earth was round is based in an inadequate understanding of Pythagorean thought.
Because we insist on trying to find science in mysticism instead of reading the plain text.
-
This is is both a) historically not accurate
What aspect of Pythagorean thought are you disputing?
I said absolutely nothing about anything being "numeric"-- just about the claim about the Earth being a sphere coming from philosophical considerations.
They are the same. :-\ Pythagoreans were both numerists and philosophers. Their philosophy was wholly numeric.
No. It really wasn't. It had numeric aspects. But it had many aspects that had nothing to do with that. The belief in transmigration of souls for example had nothing to do with that.
And point of fact, many of the ancients were fine with empirical observation.
Few, and they were not the originators of globularism which was the question asked.
We don't know where the ancient Greeks got the idea that the Earth was a sphere. I don't know why you keep thinking this. By the time we have any record, it was already common knowledge. As to whether the the number of empiricists was small, that's a very difficult question.
While it is true that some of the ancient Greek beliefs about the Earth being round were based on philosophical, non-empirical claims, that's distinct from the claim being made that it was due to the belief that the sphere was the perfect shape.
Not when globularism is seen from the eyes of the Pythagoreans who believed the sphere to be perfect. Other Greeks (Plato, notably) borrowed this belief. Aristotle claims that before Plato there was no distinction between mathematics and the physical, visible world or form and being.
Excuse me, but so what? The Earth was not perfect according to the Pythagoreans. So there's no intrinsic reason to give it the perfect shape.
In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round. There's very little in the extant texts that actually helps here.
Because we insist on trying to find science in mysticism instead of reading the plain text.
I'm not at all sure I follow this. Do you have a specific example in some text in mind?
In fact, while we're on the subject, you earlier said that:
This is made startlingly clear by reading Pythagorean, Platonic and Aristotelian works. The foundation of modern astronomy is the centuries old musing of Greek sophists.
We have almost no Pythagorean texts ...
We have precisely no Pythagorean texts if by Pythagorean you mean texts attributed directly to Pythagoras.
Yes. You now leave me very confused about what you are at all intending to say earlier. Since you brought the matter first of "Pythagorean texts" what were you intending? Is this some form of intended nitpick? To go over this, you mentioned Pythagorean texts. I commented that we didn't have much of that. You then made the true statement that we don't have any texts from Pythagoras. I can't figure out what your point is here.
The only related direct texts we have are much later Neo-Pythagorean texts from around 200 BCE). So I'm not at all sure what you are talking about here.
We have Platonic texts (Plato being heavily versed in Pythagorean thought), the references of Aristotle to the Pythagoreans (generally not complimentary) and the Neo-Pythagorean writings. From the body of these we can see the Pythagoreans were numerists not scientists and that globularism originated therein and not from empiricism. It is also well documented that Pythagoras (or his followers) (and later Plato) thought the sphere was the perfect shape, and hence the cosmos of Phythagorean mythos.
What? At minimum you are going to have to define your terms much more precisely. What do you mean by "numerist" and "scientist" - you seem to be making distinctions here that are obvious to you but not to your reader. Incidentally, simply repeating something doesn't make it true. Do you have either a) direct argument from Plato or any other early text saying that the Earth is a sphere because the sphere was perfect or b) any mainstream academic source making this claim? This claim is particularly strange given that a major aspect of Plato's philosophy is that we live in an imperfect world.
In fact, Aristotle's texts are some of the oldest texts we have which apply empirical arguments for a round Earth
Aristotle was a giant leap forward to empiricism, yet the belief predates him substantially. He inherited the belief in a round world and offered his evidence for it. This is, to answer the question again, why people believed the world was round before any modern conspiracy. Whether they believed this based on numerism, as the Pythagoreans, or inherited the belief from them, the ancient Hellenists were simply mistaken.
Again, you are dividing the issue where there can be no division (atleast in the case of the Pythagoreans).
If you think this, then please explain how in more detail. How is the Pythagorean belief in the perfection of the sphere relevant when <i>they didn't think that the Earth was perfect?</i>
-
We don't know where the ancient Greeks got the idea that the Earth was a sphere. I don't know why you keep thinking this. By the time we have any record, it was already common knowledge. As to whether the the number of empiricists was small, that's a very difficult question.
Did you read the Platonic quote Roundy provided? The earth is round for the same reason that the skull is round. It is created in the perfect shape.
In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round. There's very little in the extant texts that actually helps here.
Because we insist on trying to find science in mysticism instead of reading the plain text.
I'm not at all sure I follow this. Do you have a specific example in some text in mind?
How about Aristotle's commentary: "But the Italian philosophers known as Pythagoreans take the contrary view. At the centre, they say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the centre. They further construct another earth in opposition to ours to which they give the name counterearth. In all this they are not seeking for theories and causes to account for observed facts, but rather forcing their observations and trying to accommodate them to certain theories and opinions of their own. "
If you think this, then please explain how in more detail. How is the Pythagorean belief in the perfection of the sphere relevant when <i>they didn't think that the Earth was perfect?</i>
Because they thought the cosmos was created perfectly in numeric harmony and that earth was simply another heavenly body moving about the hearth of the universe, regardless of their view of humanities failings.
-
In fact, we actually have a lot of trouble understanding why the ancient Greeks thought that the Earth was round.
According to Plato's Timaeus, the Creator "made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures"
Sounds like a pretty solid endorsement of Ski's point to me.
Yes. I'm clearly wrong. Interesting, I thought that claim didn't occur later. That strongly undermines the claim I was making. It isn't clear to me that the philosophical consideration went before the empirical one, but this is strong evidence that their belief in a spherical earth had strong philosophical motivations. I'll have to research this more, but right now it looks like I was wrong.
-
The error is not unique to you; you simply held it with more conviction than most; and most of my frustration was/is because you seem, by all means, better read than most yet the evidence is very clear. Pythagoreans were simply a number cult, as Aristotle attests.
-
as a zeteticist I strongly oppose assumptions, at any stage of scientific inquiry.
I'm assuming you're not an RE'er or an FE'er, nor do you believe in very much, then?
-
as a zeteticist I strongly oppose assumptions, at any stage of scientific inquiry.
I'm assuming you're not an RE'er or an FE'er, nor do you believe in very much, then?
I believe in what I can see with my own eyes. Trees grow from the ground. The sky is blue. The Earth is flat.
Seriously, though, what does belief have to do with fact? Usually they seem to be diametrically opposed. Facts are facts no matter what I believe.
-
I believe in what I can see with my own eyes. Trees grow from the ground. The sky is blue. The Earth is flat.
Well there's your problem.
-
I believe in what I can see with my own eyes. Trees grow from the ground. The sky is blue. The Earth is flat.
Well there's your problem.
How is supporting a theory a problem?
Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
-
I believe in what I can see with my own eyes. Trees grow from the ground. The sky is blue. The Earth is flat.
Well there's your problem.
How is supporting a theory a problem?
Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
His problem is that he's never directly observed a tree growing or the entire structure of the earth, yet he makes claims with absolute certainty despite this. Zeteticism, indeed.
-
I believe in what I can see with my own eyes. Trees grow from the ground. The sky is blue. The Earth is flat.
Well there's your problem.
How is supporting a theory a problem?
Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
I don't think Occam's Razor is accepted on this site anymore, because it doesn't solve anything, and only causes more pointless bickering from people.
-
How is supporting a theory a problem?
Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
There's no problem with supporting a theory, nor did I claim there was. There is, however, and problem with making claims before considering any other possibilities aside from what is directly observed.
And Occam's Razor is pointless, at least in RET vs FET context. Debates about Occam's Razor inevitably degrade into fruitless bickering.
-
...inevitably degrade into fruitless bickering.
I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a thread NOT do this.
-
...inevitably degrade into fruitless bickering.
I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a thread NOT do this.
It is the Flat Earth Razor.
-
I believe in what I can see with my own eyes. Trees grow from the ground. The sky is blue. The Earth is flat.
Well there's your problem.
How is supporting a theory a problem?
Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
His problem is that he's never directly observed a tree growing or the entire structure of the earth, yet he makes claims with absolute certainty despite this. Zeteticism, indeed.
I've never observed a tree growing? You mean in the sense that I can't literally see it getting bigger? What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from the fact that trees are always sticking out of the ground unless artificially put in other circumstances? ???
There is, however, and problem with making claims before considering any other possibilities aside from what is directly observed.
Pot, meet kettle. Look, you're both the same color!
And Occam's Razor is pointless, at least in RET vs FET context. Debates about Occam's Razor inevitably degrade into fruitless bickering.
About this, we agree.
-
I've never observed a tree growing? You mean in the sense that I can't literally see it getting bigger? What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from the fact that trees are always sticking out of the ground unless artificially put in other circumstances? ???
Yes...observing trees only confirms their existence, not that they're growing. This is precisely the sort of argument that people make all the time on this board so I'm surprised that I have to spell it out for you.
-
I've never observed a tree growing? You mean in the sense that I can't literally see it getting bigger? What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from the fact that trees are always sticking out of the ground unless artificially put in other circumstances? ???
Yes...observing trees only confirms their existence, not that they're growing. This is precisely the sort of argument that people make all the time on this board so I'm surprised that I have to spell it out for you.
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks. If you've never had the pleasure of observing a tree grow I feel sorry for you. Maybe if you got more in touch with nature you'd be better equipped to see the world as it truly is. :)
-
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks.
Hmm, interesting. Can you describe to me how you've managed to observe a tree grow over many years? It does not seem physically possible. ???
-
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks.
Hmm, interesting. Can you describe to me how you've managed to observe a tree grow over many years? It does not seem physically possible. ???
Roundy has an exceedingly long attention span and exceedingly little life.
-
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks.
Hmm, interesting. Can you describe to me how you've managed to observe a tree grow over many years? It does not seem physically possible. ???
A poplar from sapling to cultivatable size for burning takes 4 or so years. When I was at boarding school for the 3 years i was able to see the poplars grow while working in the field. Unless someone keeps replanting larger and larger trees....
Berny
Smart school 400+ students = lots of free labour.
-
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks.
Hmm, interesting. Can you describe to me how you've managed to observe a tree grow over many years? It does not seem physically possible. ???
A poplar from sapling to cultivatable size for burning takes 4 or so years. When I was at boarding school for the 3 years i was able to see the poplars grow while working in the field. Unless someone keeps replanting larger and larger trees....
Berny
Smart school 400+ students = lots of free labour.
I think you're onto something Berny, the "mysterious being that appears when we're not looking and replaces smaller plants with larger plants to make them appear growing theory."
-
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks.
Hmm, interesting. Can you describe to me how you've managed to observe a tree grow over many years? It does not seem physically possible. ???
A poplar from sapling to cultivatable size for burning takes 4 or so years. When I was at boarding school for the 3 years i was able to see the poplars grow while working in the field. Unless someone keeps replanting larger and larger trees....
Berny
Smart school 400+ students = lots of free labour.
I think you're onto something Berny, the "mysterious being that appears when we're not looking and replaces smaller plants with larger plants to make them appear growing theory."
It seem perfectly reasonable, from a Zetetic standpoint, that we consider all possibilities no matter how insane they might seem at first.
So tell me sillyrob, do you think that it is possible that there is always a static number of trees and that this mysterious being ... let's just call it the "tree fairy" for convenience sake ... that the tree fairy just cycles the trees around the world when everyone is not looking, sort of like Santa Claus?
I think this evidence brought forth deserves some more thorough investigation... but how do you catch this tree fairy if they are never around when you aren't looking?
*** Please note intense sarcasm ***
-
I've watched trees as they've grown over many years from tiny saplings to mighty oaks.
Hmm, interesting. Can you describe to me how you've managed to observe a tree grow over many years? It does not seem physically possible. ???
A poplar from sapling to cultivatable size for burning takes 4 or so years. When I was at boarding school for the 3 years i was able to see the poplars grow while working in the field. Unless someone keeps replanting larger and larger trees....
Berny
Smart school 400+ students = lots of free labour.
I think you're onto something Berny, the "mysterious being that appears when we're not looking and replaces smaller plants with larger plants to make them appear growing theory."
It seem perfectly reasonable, from a Zetetic standpoint, that we consider all possibilities no matter how insane they might seem at first.
So tell me sillyrob, do you think that it is possible that there is always a static number of trees and that this mysterious being ... let's just call it the "tree fairy" for convenience sake ... that the tree fairy just cycles the trees around the world when everyone is not looking, sort of like Santa Claus?
I think this evidence brought forth deserves some more thorough investigation... but how do you catch this tree fairy if they are never around when you aren't looking?
*** Please note intense sarcasm ***
Video surveillance. It has been done, but for other reasons besides catching tree fairies.