Invalid Inductive Argument

I say this argument by itself is completely invalid since there is no logical reason to jump from seeing a few miles to concluding the rest of the earth is the same. 

How about this. I look out the window at the lighthouse at Byron Bay the Easterly most point of Australia. I have a full 180 degree field of vision that is all ocean. Now if I can see directly east to the horizon, where ships apparently disappear due to the curvature of the earth, then I should be able to see the earth curve away to the north and the south.

But I do not.

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

Ahah... but you won't find that many pieces of land adjacent that are perfectly flat. All those hills, valleys, moutains, cities, roads, forests etc. Not that flat.

Can I just point out that no naturally occuring piece of land on either model is perfectly flat, no matter what size. even a 'perfect' silicon wafer isn't perfectly flat.

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

But what about all of the lumpy parts?  And all of the hilly parts?  And all of the mountainy parts?  Are they all flat too?  What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 02, 2008, 03:49:39 AM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

But what about all of the lumpy parts?  And all of the hilly parts?  And all of the mountainy parts?  Are they all flat too?  What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?

they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2008, 01:18:33 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 02, 2008, 03:49:39 AM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

But what about all of the lumpy parts?  And all of the hilly parts?  And all of the mountainy parts?  Are they all flat too?  What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?

they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.

No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.

Quote from: FETftw on September 02, 2008, 01:41:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2008, 01:18:33 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 02, 2008, 03:49:39 AM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

But what about all of the lumpy parts?  And all of the hilly parts?  And all of the mountainy parts?  Are they all flat too?  What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?

they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.

No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.

where is your proof?

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 01:50:23 PM

Quote from: FETftw on September 02, 2008, 01:41:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2008, 01:18:33 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 02, 2008, 03:49:39 AM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

But what about all of the lumpy parts?  And all of the hilly parts?  And all of the mountainy parts?  Are they all flat too?  What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?

they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.

No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.

where is your proof?

And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.

Quote from: FETftw on September 02, 2008, 01:56:27 PM

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 01:50:23 PM

Quote from: FETftw on September 02, 2008, 01:41:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2008, 01:18:33 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 02, 2008, 03:49:39 AM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

But what about all of the lumpy parts?  And all of the hilly parts?  And all of the mountainy parts?  Are they all flat too?  What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?

they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.

No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.

where is your proof?

And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.

wow, it l00kz flat too me lulz!!.
i didnt say it.
looks like straight up 2d flatness to me!

And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.

Looks pretty flat to me.

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 01:58:26 PM

And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.

Looks pretty flat to me.

...and that, my fellow RErs, is why FErs fail.

Quote from: DrainCoverLover on September 02, 2008, 02:01:36 PM

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 01:58:26 PM

And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.

Looks pretty flat to me.

...and that, my fellow RErs, is why FErs fail.

your flat earth is missing the ice wall.

There is no ice wall, because the Earth is round. 

There is no ice wall, because the Earth is round. 

But how is that possible, when the earth is flat?

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 02:05:18 PM

There is no ice wall, because the Earth is round. 

But how is that possible, when the earth is flat?

It isn't flat, you're just ignorant, stubborn, and foolish like all other FErs. (or the ones who pretend to be) 

Remember, RET=Real Earth Theory, and FET=Fake Earth Theory.

They start with an R and an F for a reason.

Remember, RET=Retarded Earth Theory, and FET=Fantastic Earth Theory.

Fix'd.

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 02:09:56 PM

Remember, RET=Retarded Earth Theory, and FET=Fantastic Earth Theory.

Fix'd.

You're still saying th Earth is round that way.

Another victory for RE!!

(because there's no such thing as an FE victory  )

You're still saying th Earth is round that way.

th earth? whats that?

Another victory for RE!!

You still have some way to go until you "get" this site.

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 02:13:18 PM

You're still saying th Earth is round that way.

th earth? whats that?

Quote

Another victory for RE!!

You still have some way to go until you "get" this site.

You don't understand typos yet? I find that sad.

There is nothing to get, besides undertstading that most people here are retards, FE or RE. (but especially FE)

You don't understand typos yet? I find that sad.

 

There is nothing to get, besides undertstading that most people here are retards

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 02, 2008, 02:17:35 PM

You don't understand typos yet? I find that sad.

 

Quote

There is nothing to get, besides undertstanding that most people here are retards

You sir, fail.

Look at this picture. Does this look flat (theoretically)? Of course not! Does it look round? Yes, but it isn't. This 3d model consists of several flat surfaces all angled to make it look round. Don't believe me? Ask any 3d modeler!

Now, I'm seeing people here saying "The Earth is round! Look: RET = Real Earth Theory, FET = Fake Earth Theory", and even more of "Look outside your window, the ground is flat! see?!"

Look, just because you can take any one small part of Earth and call it flat, does not mean the rest of the Earth is flat. Infact, when I look outside my window, there are various hills and stuff. They're not flat, unless you were to cut out the side of one of those hills. My point being, is that the Earth is too big to come up with any conclusions on its shape just by looking out your window. It's like saying that air doesn't exists because you don't see it.

Things aren't exactly as you precieve. FE'ers merely looked out their window, saw a flat patch of ground, and suddenly assumed earth was flat, and made up a bunch of crap to make it seem a little more true.

Look at this picture. Does this look flat (theoretically)? Of course not! Does it look round? Yes, but it isn't. This 3d model consists of several flat surfaces all angled to make it look round. Don't believe me? Ask any 3d modeler!

Now, I'm seeing people here saying "The Earth is round! Look: RET = Real Earth Theory, FET = Fake Earth Theory", and even more of "Look outside your window, the ground is flat! see?!"

Look, just because you can take any one small part of Earth and call it flat, does not mean the rest of the Earth is flat. Infact, when I look outside my window, there are various hills and stuff. They're not flat, unless you were to cut out the side of one of those hills. My point being, is that the Earth is too big to come up with any conclusions on its shape just by looking out your window. It's like saying that air doesn't exists because you don't see it.

Things aren't exactly as you precieve. FE'ers merely looked out their window, saw a flat patch of ground, and suddenly assumed earth was flat, and made up a bunch of crap to make it seem a little more true.

That was super awesome.

Looks pretty flat to me.

Quote from: BlueThen on September 02, 2008, 02:47:16 PM

Looks pretty flat to me.

I said theoretically. Meaning, regardless of the flat screen, it should look round.

Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead

Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead

The earth is flat.

Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead

The only reason the thread is dead is because it went way off topic.  I asked for an analysis of the inductive reasoning in the argument.  It is the same argument as this:

I see one black crow.
I see two black crows.
I see three black crows.

Therefore all crows are black.

That's an invalid argument.  Faulty use of induction.  Failure at universal instantiation.

No one has made a case for it being valid logic.

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 03:41:39 AM

So then it could look like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png

No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.

So you agree then that the argument as it is usually given is inadequate?

Quote from: dyno on September 02, 2008, 05:25:49 PM

Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead

The only reason the thread is dead is because it went way off topic.  I asked for an analysis of the inductive reasoning in the argument.  It is the same argument as this:

I see one black crow.
I see two black crows.
I see three black crows.

Therefore all crows are black.

That's an invalid argument.  Faulty use of induction.  Failure at universal instantiation.

No one has made a case for it being valid logic.

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck - is it a goose? no silly, its a duck. if its flat when i look out my window, and if i drop a ball and it doesnt roll, guess what - earth is flat.
another win for FE!