Occam's Razor

I do sincerely apologize if this has been discussed previously.  I used the search function already and didn't see anything.

The first thing I thought of when I came to this site was "... have these people never even heard of Occam's Razor, or do they simply ignore it?"  If it was ignored here, I wasn't going to mention it, because Occam's Razor is philosophy, not fact. 

To double check, I searched for Occam's Razor in these D&D boards.  To my amazement, the only result that came up was one which used Occam's Razor in SUPPORT of FE theory.  They were saying things like "when I look out my window, I see a flat earth.  Which is simpler: the earth is flat, or there are complex illusions involved?"  Which does make a twisted sort of sense.  I would argue that Occam's Razor does not apply there because RE has been proven, but that's beside the point.  What really is important is that FE'ers do, indeed, trust Occam's Razor enough to use it as support for their theories...

... and then blatantly ignore it in other instances.  When I look at a picture or video taken from space of Earth or on the moon, I see the depiction of a round Earth and gravity.  Which is simpler, there is a round Earth and gravity, or there is a large conspiracy to trick the public into believing the Earth is round for monetary gain, including photo editing, video editing, and drugs to induce false experiences upon astronauts?

Fact: day and night occur.  Which is simpler, the Earth is spinning at a constant rate so light is cast on different places from the spherical sun at different times, or the Earth is tilting on its axis without being slowed and in a way so predictable that we can accurately predict when night will occur in different areas, and that the sun is actually a spotlight who casts light in different areas while its target shifts?  Both are plausible, but I  would say that a spinning Earth takes a lot less explaining.

Fact: ships appear to sink at the horizon when watching them sail out to sea.  Which is simpler, they sailed far enough out that they were below my line of view (as is completely obvious in a round Earth model), or the bottoms of them were distorted by waves which only started occuring miles out to sea but for some reason had not yet affected visability?

To make this much simpler, I'll quite Tom Bishop:

"What's the simplest explanation; that when I look out my window and see a Flat Earth that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?"

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look out my window on a 747 at 30,000 feet and above to vaguely detect the curvature of the horizon that my eyes are decieving me and that I am actually looking at the center of the universe, at infinite plains of the ice wall surrounding the Earth, which is accelerating upwards, tilting on its axes to allow sunlight to gaze upon different areas; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

Straight from the horse's mouth, applied against him.

So, only two conclusions can really be drawn.  One of them is that the Earth does not actually exist, seeing as both RE theory and FE theory are both contradicted by Occam's Razor at parts.  And if it does not have a flat surface OR a rounded one, it is not a shape and, therefore, cannot exist.  I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the Earth exists, so we'll go with the second conclusion: that Occam's Razor cannot be applied to serious scientific debate as proof because, even if improbable, the complex is still possible.   

Occam's Razor is thrown out the window now, fair enough?

That being said, is there any reason why our complex mathematics are less logical than your simple observations?

Airplanes produce lift.

However for your other arguments:

Light/Day is SIMPLER on RE.  We don't need crazy amounts of refraction.

Sinking Effect is SIMPLER on RE.  We don't need to change the laws of perspective.

However:

"Gravity" is SIMPLER on FE.  They don't need a theoretical particle or folding of space-time.

Occam's Razor is thrown out the window now, fair enough?

Agreed.

/thread

Occam's Razor is not applicable here.

One may only apply Occam's Razor and discard the more complicated of two models when both models predict equivalent observations, and do so with equivalent accuracy.

FE does not do this.  FE provides no predictive power, and no mathematical model whereby things like future planetary positions may be accurately predicted.

RE, by contrast, does do this, and it is therefor accepted as the correct model, without recourse to something like Occam's Razor.

Airplanes produce lift.

However for your other arguments:

Light/Day is SIMPLER on RE.  We don't need crazy amounts of refraction.

Sinking Effect is SIMPLER on RE.  We don't need to change the laws of perspective.

However:

"Gravity" is SIMPLER on FE.  They don't need a theoretical particle or folding of space-time.

Airplanes do produces lift.  When did I imply that they didn't?  

About the rest of your post... I won't try to argue.  That's my whole point.  Occam's Razor cannot be applied here because it contradicts BOTH theories.

Quote from: Seeker of Logic on December 24, 2007, 10:37:34 AM

Occam's Razor is thrown out the window now, fair enough?

Agreed.

/thread

/thread as in thread over?  I don't see how.  My point is that, without Occam's Razor, our complex science to explain rotundity are perfectly valid.  From what I've seen, science isn't disproved here, it is labelled as theory and then ignored because it is complex versus simplicity.  Since simplicity versus complexity doesn't apply, doesn't that shift the burden of proof to the FEers? 

Occam's Razor is not applicable here.

Agreed.

Now can we /thread?

Quote from: Max Fagin on December 24, 2007, 10:53:26 AM

Occam's Razor is not applicable here.

Agreed.

Now can we /thread?

Why would we?  My point wasn't to use the Razor to disprove RE or FE, it was to try and shift the burden of proof back to FE because they can't simply say "Our explanation is simpler, therefore it's on you to prove it wrong." 

I thought it was a thread about Occam's Razor.  My express opinion about Occam's Razor is that since it's merely a philosophical concept and doesn't actually do anything to prove one way or another it is not applicable.  I certainly am not of the opinion that it favors FE (though I have used it such a way to demonstrate my point when it's brought up by REers as the ultimate evidence of a round earth).

Well, I'm sorry.  Perhaps I should clarify.  I was prepared to use Occam's Razor as 'the ultimate evidence of a round earth', but I performed a search and found it being used AGAINST round earth - in valid ways.  So I came out of it with the realization that Occam's Razor does not apply, and I made a thread to express that because it seems people do use it in favor of an FE (see Tom Bishop's post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18609.0).  Since the Razor doesn't apply, those points are not valid, and just saying "that's complex, ours is simple" doesn't actually say anything at all.  Since complex explanations are not rendered invalid, they can be believed true until otherwise proven.  And nothing has been otherwise proven, so I don't understand wh ythey say the burden of proof is on the REers.

i once started a thread like this-i don't know what happened to it.

the first FE response was to re-state the RE position in an extra complicated fashion to make it sound more complicated than the FE version, then apply occam's razor!

they also claim a "conspiracy" is somehow MORE plausable than an ACTUAL space program-based on the assumption that everyone at NASA has been lying!

in the "zygetic" book, it says that when someone challenges an old belief, the burden of proof is on the old belief, so someone could say "earth is not round" without proof.
BUT...in the very next sentence it says that someone stating a new belief, like "earth is actually flat", has the burden of proof on him, a point all FErs deliberately avoid! the burden of proof IS on FE, they just SAY it isn't to try to hide from the fact they have no proof!

one more point: occams razor says the theory with fewer unknowns is probably true.
a few unknowns in FE: lunar phases, eclipses, why the earth and moon don't collide, longer days in antarctica, tides, sunrise/sunset, the "sinking ship" effect, the coriolus effect, the "retrograde" movements of the other planets (relative to the stars), why the sun and moon would go in circles and not shoot straight off the edge...just a few samples!

unknowns in RE? maybe gravity. maybe.

I do agree with pretty much everything you've said.  Which is why I'm confused.  I'm hoping an FEer can come in here and explain to me WHY the burden of proof is on REers.  I think I know why, but I really hope I'm wrong.

"Gravity" is SIMPLER on FE.  They don't need a theoretical particle or folding of space-time.

Very true. However, it should be noted that the gravitation they so often cite as real does involve spacetime curvature.

I do agree with pretty much everything you've said.  Which is why I'm confused.  I'm hoping an FEer can come in here and explain to me WHY the burden of proof is on REers.  I think I know why, but I really hope I'm wrong.

The common 'argument' that FE'ers seem to think shifts the burden of proof onto our shoulders is that; to the naked eye, the earth looks flat.  Which of course means absolutely nothing.

I am reminded of the 'proof' attributed to a student studying under Pythagorus:

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles, therefore..."

I'm hoping an FEer can come in here and explain to me WHY the burden of proof is on REers.  I think I know why, but I really hope I'm wrong.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. REers are essentially the ones who come on here claiming that FE is wrong and stupid. It is then their job to showcase why.

The common 'argument' that FE'ers seem to think shifts the burden of proof onto our shoulders is that; to the naked eye, the earth looks flat.  Which of course means absolutely nothing.

Actually, it means everything. If we observe a creature that walks on four legs, has a wet nose, floppy ears, wags a tail, and says "woof woof" then we can reasonably conclude that the creature is a dog. From all observation and senses we can nearly conclusively conclude that the creature is a dog. There is no reason to consider that the dog is actually a kitty cat in disguise. Therefore the creature is a dog until proven otherwise.

Therefore, since the earth appears flat, it is flat until proven otherwise. The onus is on the Round Earthers to prove beyond doubt that the earth is actually a globe.

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look out my window on a 747 at 30,000 feet and above to vaguely detect the curvature of the horizon that my eyes are decieving me and that I am actually looking at the center of the universe, at infinite plains of the ice wall surrounding the Earth, which is accelerating upwards, tilting on its axes to allow sunlight to gaze upon different areas; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

Unfortunately for this rebuttal it's pretty well known around here that pilots do not see curvature to the earth from 30,000 feet.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from any flying altitude.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Therefore, since the earth appears flat, it is flat until proven otherwise. The onus is on the Round Earthers to prove beyond doubt that the earth is actually a globe.

If the burden of proof is on RE'ers, then it is also on pathologists, who think disease is cause by microscopic organisms.

If the burden of proof is on RE'ers, then it is also on chemists, who think materials are composed of molecules.

If the burden of proof is on RE'ers, then it is also on Physicists, who think molecules are composed of atoms.

NONE of these ideas can be derived from simple appearances.  A sick person does not appear to be under attack by a swarm of microscopic organisms, a glass of water does not appear to be composed of any kind of discrete molecule, and a chunk of iron certainly does not appear to be composed of collections of 26 protons and 30 neutrons.

At first glance, the Earth may APPEAR flat, but as in the above cases, first appearances often say nothing about objective reality.  One must engage in more detailed experiments (more detailed than Rowbotham ever bothered to try in some cases) and search for models with predictive power in order to uncover objective reality.

You seem to think that is it is possible to change a person's mind on this subject. You are sorely mistaken.

If the burden of proof is on RE'ers, then it is also on pathologists, who think disease is cause by microscopic organisms.

If the burden of proof is on RE'ers, then it is also on chemists, who think materials are composed of molecules.

If the burden of proof is on RE'ers, then it is also on Physicists, who think molecules are composed of atoms.

It is on them, and they've acquired "proof"...

so, theEngineer, a FEr, CLAIMS not to have seen earth's curvature from his SMALL plane that never went very high. in other words, it looks flat TO HIM, so it must be flat...the only argument FErs have ever had!

It is on them, and they've acquired "proof"...

As have we.

RE'ers have acquired proof. Or rather, we have acquired 'proof' of the Earth's sphericity which is of equal veracity with (as in my previous examples) chemists with the atomic model, or physicists with the standard model of particle physics.

Think about it.  No one has ever seen an atom.  Even with electron microscopes, you're not seeing an atom, you are seeing the effects predicted if atoms existed.  But still, the atomic model is accepted because it predicts the behavior of chemicals.

No one has ever seen an electron.  Even in bubble and cloud chambers, you are not seeing an electron, you are just seeing the effects predicted by theory if an electron existed.

It's the same with RE.  You personally may not be able to see the earth sphericity from your limited perspective on it's surface.  Just as you personally may be unable to see an atom or an electron from your limited perspective of size.

But, we have a model (RE) which, like the atomic model and the standard model of particle physics, predicts the future behavior of a system.  It predicts the behavior of the sun, moon and planets with an accuracy that is astounding.  This 'proof' removes the burden of proof from the RE'ers, just as it removed the burden of proof from those who think matter is composed of atoms, and who think that atoms are composed of specific particles.

This 'proof' removes the burden of proof from the RE'ers, just as it removed the burden of proof from those who think matter is composed of atoms, and who think that atoms are composed of specific particles.

Bullshit.  That is circular reasoning.  That "proof" is what you can use in your defense of a RE on a forum that sees things from a FE perspective.  Since it's the REers' view that is the unorthodox one here, it is up to the REers to demonstrate why their model is the correct one.  Because of the nature of this site, the burden of proof sits squarely on the REers' shoulders.

If that wasn't the case, every REer here could just say "We know the earth is round from rigorous experimentation so we don't need to prove it!" and everybody would be Eric Bloedow and that would be acceptable.  But the very fact that you and several REers feel the need to go into excruciating detail of why the earth must be round goes to prove who shoulders the burden of proof on this forum.  In other words, you demonstrate it yourselves, time and time again.

To return to one of your analogies, if the pathologist were to visit a website whose purpose was to argue that diseases are caused by evil spirits taking over the sufferer's brain, it would certainly be up to the pathologist to show why this view is wrong.  The burden of proof would indeed be on the pathologist, as you suggest.

This is a website where the people claim to believe in a flat earth.  To change their minds it becomes necessary to show proof somehow that they are wrong.  That sounds like burden of proof to me.

so, where do you get off claiming that photos are not evidence?

oh, because the tyrants who run this site arbitrarily and unilaterally declared that any photo that appears to show that earth is round must be fake just because they say it's fake!

what next? will they threaten to ban me unless i say i believe earth is flat?

i frankly find it difficult to believe that anyone could say "everyone at NASA is lying, i don't need proof, they must be lying just because i and only i say they are" and expect anyone to listen...but Tom Bishop, for one, thinks saying that over and over is "proof" of FE!!

if you FErs can actually fill in the huge holes in your theory, and not expect everyone to mindlessly swallow your BS about "universal acceleration" and "cellestial gears" on pure faith, i might consider taking you seriously.

in fact, the only reason i come back is to laugh at how crazy you are!

Quote

The common 'argument' that FE'ers seem to think shifts the burden of proof onto our shoulders is that; to the naked eye, the earth looks flat.  Which of course means absolutely nothing.

Actually, it means everything. If we observe a creature that walks on four legs, has a wet nose, floppy ears, wags a tail, and says "woof woof" then we can reasonably conclude that the creature is a dog. From all observation and senses we can nearly conclusively conclude that the creature is a dog. There is no reason to consider that the dog is actually a kitty cat in disguise. Therefore the creature is a dog until proven otherwise.

Therefore, since the earth appears flat, it is flat until proven otherwise. The onus is on the Round Earthers to prove beyond doubt that the earth is actually a globe.

We do have proof beyond a doubt.  We have photographs and eye witnesses.  You guys just conveniently dismiss that as "conspiracy".

... I really hope I'm misunderstanding something.

Let me see if I've got the FES mentality down.

*Clears throat*

The Earth appears flat and therefore we believe it is flat, and since you are here, it is flat until you prove otherwise.  In this way, nothing short of solid factual proof that the Earth is round will convince us that it is, indeed, round.  However, if you do have solid factual proof, it is obviously fake, seeing as we already know that the Earth is flat.  Therefore, all of your arguments to disprove the flat Earth are automatically invalid, because the Earth is flat.

Then we can boil that down to:

We are assumed to be right because you came to us.  Therefore, anything that says we are wrong is false. 

Or simplified even further to:

Both sides are stubborn, but we're right because it's our site.

... I mean, PLEASE correct me where I'm wrong.  Because if it really does come down to "The FEers are right because this is their site," there really shouldn't be a debate forum.

"Welcome to Flat Earth Debate & Discussion.  This forum is for the serious debate and discussion of Flat Earth theory.  Opposing viewpoints are, as always, welcomed -- but please keep the discussion serious and intelligent.  Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.  "Low-content posting" refers to short posts like "lol" or "yeah" or "that's dumb."  Before you make a post in here, ask yourself, "am I really adding anything to the conversation?"  If the answer is "no", you probably shouldn't make the post."

Should be changed to:

"Welcome to Flat Earth Debate and Discussion.  This forum is for the serious debate and discussion of Flat Earth theory.  Opposing viewpoints are invalid.  It is physically impossible to disagree with us here and be correct, because if you disagree with us here, you are automatically wrong.  There is no concievable way for you to win a debate, unless you agree with us.  Now... debate!"

Anyone want to explain where I'm mistaken?

... I really hope I'm misunderstanding something.

Let me see if I've got the FES mentality down.

*Clears throat*

The Earth appears flat and therefore we believe it is flat, and since you are here, it is flat until you prove otherwise.  In this way, nothing short of solid factual proof that the Earth is round will convince us that it is, indeed, round.  However, if you do have solid factual proof, it is obviously fake, seeing as we already know that the Earth is flat.  Therefore, all of your arguments to disprove the flat Earth are automatically invalid, because the Earth is flat.

Then we can boil that down to:

We are assumed to be right because you came to us.  Therefore, anything that says we are wrong is false. 

Anyone want to explain where I'm mistaken?

That's it as near as I can tell.

FE'ers do have a few dozen books/publications of experiments that, if taken as authentic, would show the earth to be flat.

But of course, very few of these experiments are from modern times, and even fewer are conducted by credible scientist, and none to my knowledge have been successfully repeated by observers who might be called objective (i.e. were not card carrying members of the flat earth society; thought the Earth was flat for religious reasons; had staked their professional reputation on the Earth being flat etc.).

For some reason, the experimental results seem only to be repeatable by those who already think the Earth is flat.   Hmmmm. . .

Anyone want to explain where I'm mistaken?

Yes.

As the visitors, it is up to you to come up with refutations of the FE theory.  The onus is then on us to refute those.

Refutations cannot include photographic or video evidence because such evidence is easy to fake.  They cannot include anything produced by any of the space agencies because since they supposedly prove on their own that the earth is round, we feel that there must be a conspiracy.

Understand that we don't treat the conspiracy as evidence of a flat earth (something that many newbies make the mistake of thinking, for some odd reason).  We feel that

• it can be proven the earth is flat;
• it has been proven that the earth is flat;
• certain conditions of a flat earth would make sustained spaceflight impossible;
• therefore, anyone who's claimed to have been to space must be lying, implying a conspiracy.

Think about what you posted about this being a debate forum.  It wouldn't be much of a debate if it was allowable to just say "NASA's been to space" or "This photograph proves a round earth,", would it?  The debate would end there.  To believe in a flat earth, one must take it for granted that such evidence is fake, and you're never going to change their minds.  This forum forces you to actually learn some things about why it's so strongly believed that the earth is round, and use it as ammunition.  It's really for the better of the spirit of debate if you're forced to think of less obvious refutations.

For some reason, the experimental results seem only to be repeatable by those who already think the Earth is flat.   Hmmmm. . .

They believe that the earth is flat due to the results of their experiments. The book Earth Not a Globe opens up with a presentation of experimental evidence. Samuel Birley Rowbotham presents his unbiased evidence of the convexity of standing water and concludes than that the results of the experiments speak for themselves and the earth is Flat. Next he goes on to create a model for the Flat Earth.

But of course, very few of these experiments are from modern times, and even fewer are conducted by credible scientist

What creditable science has proven through controlled experimental evidence that the earth is a globe?

None? That's what I thought.

What creditable science has proven through controlled experimental evidence that the earth is a globe?

How about the scientists at private launch firms who's job is to put satellites in orbit about the Earth?  Is this not experimental evidence?

You can shout "conspiracy!" at this if you want to, but just remember that any RE'er can just as easily shout "Liar!" at Rowbotham and any FE'er who claims to have duplicated his work.

his SMALL plane that never went very high.

Where are you getting this?  How small is my plane?   What is the largest plane I have been on?  How high is very high?  What altitudes have I flown at?