Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Felix

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / Reply to Goodfriend
« on: June 09, 2005, 09:18:02 AM »
Quote from: "Goodfriend"
I believe that the way Round Earth Science works is basically the following.

Suppose that we sit in a restaurant. We see a couple, a blonde woman and a dark-haired man. The man has steak and the woman has fish. The model we have is: blondes eat fish and dark haired people eat steak. A blonde man comes in and has fish; model is validated. Now a dark haired woman comes in and has fish. We refine our model to: blondes always have fish but dark haired women have fish too. Next person comes in, behaves according to the model. Next, we refine the model to blondes always have fish and dark haired women too, but people who enter the restaurant between 0 and 17 after the hour have fish too. And so forth.

That is, Round Earth Science explains a lot of observations, just like my model above. However still, there is no inherent truth in it.

(This quote is taken from another thread, here)

Quote from: "Goodfriend"
Your "just face the fact that..." has parallels in history. People have "proven" that no self-propelled vehicles could possibly exist, and only critical thinking saved us from this consensus opinion. Similarly around 1880, consensus popular opinion was that the airplane was an impossibility. The fact that the Round Earth Hypothesis is widely accepted does not make it true.



I accept your statement that inductivism is flawed (see the ad ignorantiam fallacy[/url]). I shall not be arrogant enough to assume you've never heard of falsificationism, but I shall point out that that method is now how science is taken to work. Remember, to the falsificationist no hypothesis is said to have any evidence for it (since thanks to David Hume no amount of evidence can be described as verifying something), but evidence which is categorically against the theory is said to have utterly disproved it.

However, I charge you to, in this thread, state your arguments on non-empiricist grounds. I have read many threads here and many of the FES's theories elsewhere and I have seen no evidence for the Flat Earth which was neither empirical (and thus subject to the same problem you point out with the argument above) nor hermeneutical.

In short: the best you can do, if you choose to use the Rationalist's empiricism-annihilating argument, the Problem of Induction, is reduce the two views, Sphericism* and Flat-Earthism, to simple opinions which one must only choose between regardless of "evidence".

I object to hermeneutical arguments on many grounds, the most pertinent of which is that, essentially, they are by definition unscientific. Since Flat-Earthers would bring the discussion to Sphericists on their own terms, "the scientific," please respond with only "scientific" arguments.

Edit: In answer to your second given quote, why do you deliberately refute current scientific arguments by pointing out the ad populum fallacy[/url], without accepting in return that a Sphericist could on exactly the same grounds say exactly the same thing about Flat-Earthism?


*Yes, I know it's a new word. However, it is a gorgeous new word, and I shall be using it henceforth.

Pages: [1]