Rewording for Accuracy

  • 4 Replies
  • 1578 Views
?

Darksuit

Rewording for Accuracy
« on: April 27, 2006, 03:19:23 PM »
I would like to humbly propose that your rename your "Flat Earth Theory" the "Flat Earth Assertion."  The reasons are as follows:

Science has very specific meaning for the terms "Laws," "Theories," and "Assertions" (keeping in mind that science is just a branch of philosophy."  

A "Law" is something that describes the relationship between two things - think v=d/t.

A "Theory" on the otherhand explains something - we already know that we fall to earth at 9.81 m/s2 and the laws appropriate for describing celestial body behaviour - but why are things this way?  The theory of Universal Gravitation EXPLAINS why the universe follows the observed laws.

Unfortunately, the Flat Earth "Theory" does not actually explain anything.  It is simply an assertion.  In fact it leads to further assertions (the sun is a spotlight, the government has a conspiracy) that become progressively sillier, but never EXPLAIN anything - they merely ASSERT how things are.

There are other advantages to this relabelling as well.  By calling it what it is, you will realize that with an assertion proof is needed.  If I were to say to you "I speak french" you might ask me for proof before you believe me.  The less common place the assertion, the more you'd demand for proof.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not approaching you as a round-earther, but as an "atheist" in this case - the round earth assertion has to prove itself to me too - and it has.  You guys havn't started proving or explaining yet.  I would propose you begin.

Rewording for Accuracy
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2006, 03:23:21 PM »
Thats a very valid argument.
i]On this issue -- my default assumption is that all members of this forum are male.  I usually expect women to have more sense than to waste their time arguing trivialities over the internet.
[/i]
-Erasmus

?

Darksuit

Rewording for Accuracy
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2006, 03:25:07 PM »
Thank you; I'm always very careful with the language I choose, trying to be a proper freethinker and all.

I don't *believe* in scientific theories I am *convinced* of them.

Rewording for Accuracy
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2006, 06:48:14 AM »
I don't think it even deseves to be an assertion, they haven't given a single un-arguable reason why it has to be flat, round earth has given that reason, it works with every tried and tested science of the Earth, such as everything has gravity -has been tested with a number of things, such as the orbits and planets gravity, the planets that we see would fall apart if there wasn't any gravity holding them together, and theres not enough glue in the universe to hold them together- so "assertion", perhaps even "unscientific vision" ("drunkness" if you like  :wink: ),would suit alot better than "theory".

Well done Darksuit.

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Re: Rewording for Accuracy
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2006, 07:28:55 AM »
Quote from: "Darksuit"
Unfortunately, the Flat Earth "Theory" does not actually explain anything.  It is simply an assertion.  In fact it leads to further assertions (the sun is a spotlight, the government has a conspiracy) that become progressively sillier, but never EXPLAIN anything - they merely ASSERT how things are.


No, the theory explains quite a lot. It takes a piece of evidence which suggests the Earth is round and explains how it could happen if the Earth was flat. For example, time zones - some parts of the Earth are dark while others are light. This is a law. The theory explains that this is because the sun is a spotlight.

You have even said yourself that the Universal Theory of Gravitation explains why objects fall to the Earth. The Flat Earth theory offers an explanation of why this happens (the Earth accelerates up)

If you consider Universal Gravitation a theory, you must consider the FE theory a theory.


You are confusing an assertion with a theory which has no evidence. Instead of claiming it is a assertion, you should be saying that there is no evidence for a flat-Earth, all the theory does is explain current evidence for RE and how it could fit on an FE.