Honest Mistake Theory

In my brief time here on these forums I have seen a lot of argument regarding the plausibility and particulars of the Flat Earth Conspiracy Theory.  Indeed, a substantial chunk of the FAQ is dedicated to it.


What I haven't seen is discussion of a Flat Earth theory that does not require a conspiracy.  So here is mine.  I call it the Honest Mistake Theory:

Premise 1: The Earth is flat.

Premise 2:  Any number of institutions and individuals, which we will hereafter call "the Government" claim that the Earth is round.

Common (Conspiracy Theory) Conclusion: Therefore we can conclude that a conspiracy exists in "the Government" to hide the truth.

Alternate (Honest Mistake Theory) Conclusion: Therefore, we can conclude that "the Government" is honestly just misinformed.

Naturally, the above assumes the acceptance of the two premises.

I already put this idea forward (with greater elaboration) here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.100


I hope this yields fruitful discussion.

Nope.  They cannot make a mistake about shomthing that big.  Because A) soacetravel would be impossible so the woudl figure it out, or B) for some reason spcae travel is possible and then that means all pictures are real thus showing a round earth.


Don’t take offence but people pull theories out of there asses all the time and they all fail.   

Nope.  They cannot make a mistake about shomthing that big.  Because A) soacetravel would be impossible so the woudl figure it out, or B) for some reason spcae travel is possible and then that means all pictures are real thus showing a round earth.


Don’t take offence but people pull theories out of there asses all the time and they all fail.   

Yep, yours sure do.

Quote from: sokarul on July 15, 2007, 05:38:14 PM

Nope.  They cannot make a mistake about shomthing that big.  Because A) soacetravel would be impossible so the woudl figure it out, or B) for some reason spcae travel is possible and then that means all pictures are real thus showing a round earth.


Don’t take offence but people pull theories out of there asses all the time and they all fail.   

Yep, yours sure do do.

Fixed it for you. 

I don't start theories.  Butt hurt are you?   

Sokarul,

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on one point.  When people pull theories "out of their asses" as you put it, those theories do not "all fail".

Democritus, a pre-Socratic philosopher, posited the existence of something he called the "atomon" or "indivisible unit".  These "atoma", he believed were too small to see and made up all the objects of the universe by their various arrangements.  These had very few qualities one could discern, but by arranging in different ways they made the multitude of the various forms of matter we observe: "By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour: but in reality atoms and void."

This was not discovered with a microscope, mind you.  Nor was it intuitively obvious (the idea was discounted by Aristotle who believed that "nature abhors a vacuum").  Indeed this was simply "pulled out of [Democritus'] ass" (the ass of Leucippus also deserves some credit).

As was his belief that the lights we see in the night sky from Earth are coming from distant stars (some of which he postulated might be inhabited).

I'm not saying Democritus got everything right (he believed, for example, that atoms could not be divided), but I wouldn't say he, or his theories failed.


But to address your intended point at long last, yes, it does seem difficult to imagine how so many people would miss something so fundamental (if the Earth were flat).  But I do present scenarios in the other forum topic (which I'd be happy to repost here) that make it logically consistent, even if it is improbable.

Don't bother, no one takes sokarul seriously.  Well, no one besides TomG, anyway.

-2

Sokarul,

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on one point.  When people pull theories "out of their asses" as you put it, those theories do not "all fail".

I just meant theories on this forum.  The Engineer has a few, the best being the magical dirt one.  There are some others, like the bending light theories. 

Quote from: Mellowone on July 15, 2007, 09:08:35 PM

Sokarul,

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on one point.  When people pull theories "out of their asses" as you put it, those theories do not "all fail".

I just meant theories on this forum.  The Engineer has a few, the best being the magical dirt one.  There are some others, like the bending light theories. 

You disagree that gravitation bends light?

I'm not sure if he was just stating a theory about bending light, or trying to make fun of it as if it doesn't happen.

Light bends with refraction. It's also part of that whole, 'mass bends space-time' thing that he keeps quoting.

I'd also like to hear about this magic dirt. My guess is that he took something TheEngineer said out of context.

I'm not sure if he was just stating a theory about bending light, or trying to make fun of it as if it doesn't happen.

Light bends with refraction. It's also part of that whole, 'mass bends space-time' thing that he keeps quoting.

I'd also like to hear about this magic dirt. My guess is that he took something TheEngineer said out of context.

TheEngineer can clarify this a lot better than I can, and I hope I don't have this wrong, but I think it's simply him wondering if all matter bends space-time based on its mass.  The idea is that something must be signaling space-time to bend and by how much, so what causes it?  Is it really a big leap to ask if all mass does this?

Is it really a big leap to ask if all mass does this?

Of course not. That's just how sokarul rolls.

Keep in mind of course, that I am not asking that anyone accept the first two premises as fact in order to comment.  Indeed, I am simply asking that they be allowed for the sake of argument.

Allowing that the Earth is flat (whether or not you believe it to be) and allowing that photographs from space seem to demonstrate that it is round, does this point to conspiracy as the only conclusion?

I propose that no, it does not.  I am keenly interested in reading some other explanations for such a discrepancy.  Further, I would love to read discussion on how plausible an honest mistake is when compared to a conspiracy.

After all, if there is no proof of a conspiracy (outside of "the Government" claiming an alleged falsehood) and any other explanation can account for the discrepancy between the Flat Earth Theory (assuming this premise is true) and "the Government" account, then why posit a deception?

Why assume malice and lies when other, more innocent explanations exist?

But to address your intended point at long last, yes, it does seem difficult to imagine how so many people would miss something so fundamental (if the Earth were flat).

I didn't miss it. Have you looked outside your window or taken a stroll outside lately?

Mr. Bishop,

I hadn't suggested that you, personally, missed anything.  However, doesn't Flat Earth Theory propose that the Earth is flat and that an alarming number of people do miss this point?

Assuming the premise that the majority of the world believes the world is round then even by the most conservative definition of majority, that's over three billion people firmly convinced of, what is to a Flat Earth theorist, a blatant falsehood.  Assuming the premise of a flat Earth, that's a least three billion people who are honestly mistaken.



As for looking out my window, I must insist that what I see with my own two eyes is a curved surface.


This might be because I live on a hill.


Still, whereas you might want me to believe I am living on a comparatively round part of a predominantly flat Earth, a Round Earth Theorist might suggest to you that when you look out your window you are seeing a comparatively flat part of a predominantly round Earth.

Everyone, then, is being asked to look past the first impression of their senses to see possibilities that are not intuitively obvious.

Quote

But to address your intended point at long last, yes, it does seem difficult to imagine how so many people would miss something so fundamental (if the Earth were flat).

I didn't miss it. Have you looked outside your window or taken a stroll outside lately?

Yes, and using power of observation, I see that RE wins. See Experiment 0001 in RE Primer. You'll note, for example, the Sun and the Moon appear in the sky exactly where RE predicts (while FE is way off).

Quote from: sokarul on July 16, 2007, 06:07:26 AM

Quote from: Mellowone on July 15, 2007, 09:08:35 PM

Sokarul,

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on one point.  When people pull theories "out of their asses" as you put it, those theories do not "all fail".

I just meant theories on this forum.  The Engineer has a few, the best being the magical dirt one.  There are some others, like the bending light theories. 

You disagree that gravitation bends light?

No, the bending light theories I'm talking about are not from gravitation. 
The first bending light theory was from someone ( I couldn’t find the thread) who was saying light magically wanted to bend upwards, away from the earth.  This was to explain the sinking of the ship.  The other one was from TomB I believe. He was saying that the earth velocity upwards is so fast that it makes the light "bend" between us and a ship leaving port. 
Both of these theories didn't get far.