1
Flat Earth Debate / FE as a failed theoretical framework for.. anything
« on: June 12, 2016, 08:18:21 AM »
Flat Earth theory, cannot be called a theory following the definition of a theory as would be found and applied in the scientific community. Therefore, any inconsistency between a scientific theory and the flat earth argument as I will refer to FE, cannot and does not imply the impracticality or legitimacy of the scientific method. In the world of science, a theory is made based on evidence obtained from data. It is not some hope, thought, wish or dream of the scientist, it is the manifestation of the instructions underlying the physical system which the theory serves to describe. Once a theory has been developed, it is placed under immense scrutiny, as it is the scientist's job to do everything and anything they can to try and DISPROVE their theory. This is how science has come to offer such bountiful and resourceful (not to mention extraordinarily accurate) descriptions of the multitude of systems and subsystems all around us. Theories are proven right by failing to prove them wrong, and only after a theoretical model has survived enough of this rigorous testing, it may be accepted as an accurate framework. But then there comes the intervention of dogmatic theologies and their perverse method of explaining the world. FE cannot be equal to science for a great many reasons. First, the faith which FE- ers nestle so tight to the core of their theology is no different from religion. It produced a framework which, to FE followers, is the absolute truth. They "know" something, even if they can't prove it. No amount of mathematical formulae, scientifically validated evidence, or argument of logic/ reason will ever convince anyone of the FE followers that their model does not accurately or reliably describe the world. I'm not one for the whole "shut up and calculate" method of finding answers, I find a healthier outlook lies in the "shut up WHILE I calculate" mentality. But if the predictions coming from FE say that a helicopter will travel 1000 meters over land simply by hovering in "one spot" due to the rotation of the earth proposed by science, then I can infer simply from that, that there is no logical or relevant application for the model. It fails to explain itself as a sound basis for experimental observation, and where it fails, it seeks to fortify, rather than discover the true underlying fault. FE is nothing more than fanatical dogma, masquerading as a theoretical framework of the world in which we live. I, for one, do not live on a flat earth