Invalid Inductive Argument

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 05:47:13 PM

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!

Certainly not a win for FE.  A miserable failure from your corner.  Either you have no understanding of logic or you are likewise just being silly. 

BTW, you can see the whole duck.

Can you see the whole earth?

Quote from: FETftw on September 02, 2008, 07:07:18 PM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 05:47:13 PM

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!

Certainly not a win for FE.  A miserable failure from your corner.  Either you have no understanding of logic or you are likewise just being silly. 

BTW, you can see the whole duck.

Can you see the whole earth?

i can see the important part of it - the flat part.
another win for FE!

BTW, you can see the whole duck.

Can you see the whole earth?

When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.

Quote

BTW, you can see the whole duck.

Can you see the whole earth?

When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.

In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 07:11:04 PM

Quote from: FETftw on September 02, 2008, 07:07:18 PM

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 02, 2008, 05:47:13 PM

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!

Certainly not a win for FE.  A miserable failure from your corner.  Either you have no understanding of logic or you are likewise just being silly. 

BTW, you can see the whole duck.

Can you see the whole earth?

i can see the important part of it - the flat part.
another win for FE!

Are you a Narc alt? You sound a lot like him

Quote

In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I'm assuming you see your own self-contradiction?

Quote

In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

From your link:

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

I'm sorry, what exactly was Rowbotham a doctor of again?

Ahh the sea of e-contrition, how I have missed thee.

OK people, here's how it works (once again, this time with feeling):

1) This site is for debate
2) One of the axioms of this debate is that there is a conspiracy preventing use of space-agency evidence as valid
3) The FE model is one of many conceivable geometries for the Earth - to say that any one is more valid than another requires logical debate supported by evidence
4) Lurk moar
5) Don't trust Tom Bishop, he's part of the conspiracy

Saying FE is an invalid theory based on a hole in inductive reasoning is completely pointless - it proves nothing other than you may need another reason for thinking the Earth may be flat, of which there are an infinite number. Stop trying to circumvent the debate and if you're a really dedicated RE'er then grow a spine, get your logic cap on and bloody well prove it.

Well said Matrix.

So explain this.

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 01, 2008, 08:27:20 PM

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. 

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. Does this not demonstrate that the earth is flat?

Quote

In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I quote from your source:

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

   1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
   2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
   3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

An appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority is not legitimate. Appealing to the authority of astronomers when making arguments about astronomy is not a fallacy. Appealing to the authority of a space agency when making arguments about space flight is also not a fallacy - unless you can prove that they have never been to space. Which you can't.

Refer to point 2) above re: space agencies.

Refer to point 2) above re: space agencies.

Since the conspiracy was always presented as fact, it's no wonder most non-FE'ers - including myself - were unwilling to accept it. I'm fine with axioms as long as they are based on logical and comprehensive assumptions. The problem with the conspiracy theory as presented by FET is that it is neither logical nor comprehensive. It's not even consistent. So far FE'ers have been adapting the conspiracy theory as they see fit in order to support their particular argument - sometimes the governments of the world are involved, sometimes they are not, etc. depending on what the FE'er in question is trying to prove.

Before I accept the conspiracy as an axiom for this debate, I would like to see the Flat Earth Society agree on an outline for it, especially concerning the involved governments, corporations and societies, and above all: the motivation behind the conspiracy.

If the FES can provide a consistent and comprehensive reference for this conspiracy theory, I have no problem accepting it as an axiom.

Ahh the sea of e-contrition, how I have missed thee.

OK people, here's how it works (once again, this time with feeling):

1) This site is for debate
2) One of the axioms of this debate is that there is a conspiracy preventing use of space-agency evidence as valid
3) The FE model is one of many conceivable geometries for the Earth - to say that any one is more valid than another requires logical debate supported by evidence
4) Lurk moar
5) Don't trust Tom Bishop, he's part of the conspiracy

Saying FE is an invalid theory based on a hole in inductive reasoning is completely pointless - it proves nothing other than you may need another reason for thinking the Earth may be flat, of which there are an infinite number. Stop trying to circumvent the debate and if you're a really dedicated RE'er then grow a spine, get your logic cap on and bloody well prove it.

I didn't say the theory was invalid; I said that particular argument was invalid.  I'm perfectly aware that there are other arguments.  You seem to think debate doesn't require the use of logic.  If you can't use logic correctly, then there is no way to debate.  Period.  And if we can't debate the use of logic by FE and RE, then how can you ever determine who wins the arguments?

And if we knock down one FET argument after another because it is not a valid argument, then FET becomes a weaker theory.

And don't tell me to put on my logic cap.  That's what this thread is about.  I understand logic.  Very few of the FE defenders seem to, however.  I also understand debate.  Debates can be won by supporting your own position, undermining your opponents position, or a combination of both.

If you can't defend an argument, then abandon it or improve it.  That's the point of this thread, which I think is in line with the point of this site.

And if we knock down one FET argument after another because it is not a valid argument, then FET becomes a weaker theory.

Which, as you probably know, says nothing of its veracity.

I didn't say the theory was invalid; I said that particular argument was invalid.  I'm perfectly aware that there are other arguments.  You seem to think debate doesn't require the use of logic.  If you can't use logic correctly, then there is no way to debate.  Period.  And if we can't debate the use of logic by FE and RE, then how can you ever determine who wins the arguments?

A logical debate is not one that should be conducted with the aim of one side 'winning' so much as all those debating get a little closer to the truth by agreeing on the best solution to the given arguments. True, if someone holds very entrenched beliefs it may be impossible to move them from their position, in which case you have to hope that everyone else who joins in/reads the debate will form their own opinion and not be drawn into school playground-style 'picking sides'. You have to go in with an open mind, and being dead set on 'winning' is certainly not going to help your objectivity.

And if we knock down one FET argument after another because it is not a valid argument, then FET becomes a weaker theory.

So as I said, go and debate in the other threads - make your arguments and present the evidence. Debate. Enjoy. That's the whole point.

And don't tell me to put on my logic cap.  That's what this thread is about.  I understand logic.  Very few of the FE defenders seem to, however.  I also understand debate.  Debates can be won by supporting your own position, undermining your opponents position, or a combination of both.

If you can't defend an argument, then abandon it or improve it.  That's the point of this thread, which I think is in line with the point of this site.

I would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth.  Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth is flat (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.

I would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth.  Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth is flat round (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.

Fixed that for you. Very good point by the way. Still it would be nice to at least settle the conspiracy issue I raised above, before we accept it as a premise for the discussion.

Quote from: Matrix on September 03, 2008, 05:50:13 AM

I would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth.  Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth is flat round (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.

Fixed that for you. Very good point by the way. Still it would be nice to at least settle the conspiracy issue I raised above, before we accept it as a premise for the discussion.

You missed the point that orbital space flight is impossible

Quote from: MadDogX on September 03, 2008, 08:00:09 AM

Quote from: Matrix on September 03, 2008, 05:50:13 AM

I would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth.  Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth is flat round (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.

Fixed that for you. Very good point by the way. Still it would be nice to at least settle the conspiracy issue I raised above, before we accept it as a premise for the discussion.

You missed the point that orbital space flight is impossible

How is that relevant to my post?

LOL... yes a minor typo on my part.  I also would like to know what orbital space flight being impossible has to do with either my post or maddog's reply...

LOL... yes a minor typo on my part.  I also would like to know what orbital space flight being impossible has to do with either my post or maddog's reply...

Well since orbital space flight is not possible, it is not possible to have orbital photography, therefore this must prove the earth to be flat.

I believe that was my point for why, when debating FET, you must assume that space agency-based evidence is inadmissible...

I believe that was my point for why, when debating FET, you must assume that space agency-based evidence is inadmissible...

I thought it was that any evidence is inadmissable?

I thought it was that any evidence is inadmissable?

...

Any evidence? I've said all along that logical arguments should be supported by evidence... surely in the FET it's only those responsible for the conspiracy whose evidence can't be relied upon?

Quote

BTW, you can see the whole duck.

Can you see the whole earth?

When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.

i can see the important part of it - the flat part.
another win for FE!

Did you people completely ignore my post?


I'll restate but in one simple sentence.
The Earth is FAR too large for you to make any conclusion about its shape just by looking outside your window.

Please stop being stubborn, supply some real evidence, and use some logic for god's sakes!

The Earth is FAR too large for you to make any conclusion about its shape just by looking outside your window.

Why assume what you think is a duck as any less complex?

Quote from: BlueThen on September 03, 2008, 12:40:02 PM

The Earth is FAR too large for you to make any conclusion about its shape just by looking outside your window.

Why assume what you think is a duck as any less complex?

A duck and a planet is way too different to be compared in such a way.

A duck and a planet is way too different to be compared in such a way.

But you're claiming the size of the Earth is too large to make a conclusion. How do you know a variable with the duck doesn't make a conclusion any harder?

Quote from: BlueThen on September 03, 2008, 12:52:36 PM

A duck and a planet is way too different to be compared in such a way.

But you're claiming the size of the Earth is too large to make a conclusion. How do you know a variable with the duck doesn't make a conclusion any harder?

You can see the duck as a whole.


Look, you're not getting my point. I'm telling you that it's not as you precieve it. How would you think the earth would look any different from your window if it were round?

You can see the duck as a whole.

So just because you can see all of something means you can make whatever conclusions you want?

I'm telling you that it's not as you precieve it.

How do I perceive it?

How would you think the earth would look any different from your window if it were round?

We can't discern anything off sight alone.