Problem with the "Perspective Effect"

  Alright, seems that I must be more specific and specify that someone from hard sciences not social sciences. I agree that psychology, philosophy, literature and history and even journalism is science but I expect you to refer me some science work which isn't some psychological profiling of Rowbothams work or person or just historical or bibliographical story. So, any hard science references, please?

The study of the earth seems pretty hard to me.

The Library of Congress even lists Flat Earth Literature under the section Science Reference Guides: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html

Who knows better, the Library of Congress, or you?

That made me chuckle.

But wait Tom...

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/astronomy.html - Round Earth Literature (boo! heretics!)
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/tracer-bullets/astronomytb.html - More lies! (swoon!)

Who knows better, the Library of Congress, or you?

But wait Tom...

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/astronomy.html - Round Earth Literature (boo! heretics!)
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/tracer-bullets/astronomytb.html - More lies! (swoon!)

Who knows better, the Library of Congress, or you?

There's nothing in terrestrial astronomy incompatible with the Flat Earth model. It's the interpretation which is debatable.

Where did you prove that Rowbotham's explanations for the sun were wrong? I don't see any proof. Where's the proof?

Where did Rowbotham prove his explanations for the sun were right?  I don't see any proof.  Where's the proof?

Where did Rowbotham prove his explanations for the sun were right?  I don't see any proof.  Where's the proof?

If you can't prove Rowbotham wrong, he must be right.

negative proof fallacy.

So I can now claim aliens from other planets do not exist, and since you cannot prove me wrong, then I must be right according to your logic.

The moon is made of cheese, since you cannot prove me wrong, then I must be right.

FAIL.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 05:16:56 AM

But wait Tom...

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/astronomy.html - Round Earth Literature (boo! heretics!)
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/tracer-bullets/astronomytb.html - More lies! (swoon!)

Who knows better, the Library of Congress, or you?

There's nothing in terrestrial astronomy incompatible with the Flat Earth model. It's the interpretation which is debatable.

WTF. Everything is incompatible. The shape of the earth. The size of the earth. The distance to the stars. The motion of the "heavens" (celestial gears anyone?)

Need I go on?

Quote from: ragnarr on March 17, 2009, 06:52:17 AM

Where did Rowbotham prove his explanations for the sun were right?  I don't see any proof.  Where's the proof?

If you can't prove Rowbotham wrong, he must be right.

But Rowbotham has been proven wrong. On this issue and many others. The sun doesn't shrink (much) as it approaches the horizon. Certainly not by the huge amount required by FE model.

Let's take a couple of steps back here. I can't really see how the magnification of light is a form of optical dispersion. The atmosphere certainly does disperse light, and this is observed in the form of green flashes. But this doesn't lead to magnification. If the atmosphere dispersed light to such a degree, then the sun would appear to be stretched vertically, and would be coloured like a rainbow.

But Rowbotham has been proven wrong. On this issue and many others. The sun doesn't shrink (much) as it approaches the horizon. Certainly not by the huge amount required by FE model.

please do not encourage his argument when it is fallacious in the first place.  You are feeding the Troll.

Quote from: zork on March 17, 2009, 03:50:38 AM

  Alright, seems that I must be more specific and specify that someone from hard sciences not social sciences. I agree that psychology, philosophy, literature and history and even journalism is science but I expect you to refer me some science work which isn't some psychological profiling of Rowbothams work or person or just historical or bibliographical story. So, any hard science references, please?

The study of the earth seems pretty hard to me.

Yes, it seems. But I didn't ask for things that seems hard to you(it seems to me that studying earth like you do is more philosophical way, so, it's soft). And I also study earth, especially at spring and autumn. Quite closely. So, I must be qualified scientist to say that Rowbothams work isn't true.
 And you still forgot to put some names or links who are these hard science men who supported Rowbotham. The Library of Congress link was history reference. If  there is some scientist among them then please point them out, because you seem to know who they are. I searched for some names but without luck and I don't have time to go through all these names.

Quote from: ragnarr on March 17, 2009, 06:52:17 AM

Where did Rowbotham prove his explanations for the sun were right?  I don't see any proof.  Where's the proof?

If you can't prove Rowbotham wrong, he must be right.

Haven't been here for a few weeks, and Tom's still churning out the same BS.  Allow me to correct:

    If you can't prove Rowbotham wrong, he must be right not proven wrong, as far as we know.

Using your reasoning:
     -God must exist because he has not been proven false.
     -There must be a pink alligator living in your toilet that becomes invisible every time you open the door; You
       cannot prove it doesn't exist, so therefore the pink alligator exists.

Marvellous stuff.

And you still forgot to put some names or links who are these hard science men who supported Rowbotham.

The names are all on that Library of Congress website along with their published works.

The Library of Congress link was history reference.

Really? I wasn't aware they called their history section "science reference guides."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2009, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: ragnarr on March 17, 2009, 06:52:17 AM

Where did Rowbotham prove his explanations for the sun were right?  I don't see any proof.  Where's the proof?

If you can't prove Rowbotham wrong, he must be right.

Haven't been here for a few weeks, and Tom's still churning out the same BS.  Allow me to correct:

    If you can't prove Rowbotham wrong, he must be right not proven wrong, as far as we know.

Using your reasoning:
     -God must exist because he has not been proven false.
     -There must be a pink alligator living in your toilet that becomes invisible every time you open the door; You
       cannot prove it doesn't exist, so therefore the pink alligator exists.

Marvellous stuff.

Those examples are unobservable and have not been peer reviewed or independently confirmed.

In contrast, Rowbotham's work posits the observable and has absolutely been independently confirmed and peer reviewed.

Until you can disprove Rowbotham's work and each of the independent reviews, his work stands as truth.

Marvellous stuff.

You forgot Russells teapot.

Those examples are unobservable and have not been peer reviewed or independently confirmed.

In contrast, Towbotham's work posits the observable and has absolutely been independently confirmed and peer reviewed.

Until you can disprove Rowbotham's work and the independent reviews, his work stands as truth.

Nothing Rowbotham posits is observable.

His work wasn't peer reviewed. It was read by the bunch of cranks that used to follow him around. There's a subtle difference.

Nothing Rowbotham posits is observable.

Rowbotham's posits are absolutely observable. For example, I observe a flat earth every single day. Never once have I observed a round one.

His work wasn't peer reviewed. It was read by the bunch of cranks that used to follow him around. There's a subtle difference.

Nope. It was peer reviewed. His experiments were reproduced and confirmed. Check out the literature.

Nope. It was peer reviewed. His experiments were reproduced and confirmed. Check out the literature.

No it was printed by the prattle rag ENaG review. This was not a peer review. If you don't understand the difference PM me.

When failing to reproduce his experiements he either ran away, or tried to pretend the result was as expected. Then he moved onto the next town of suckers.

Quote

And you still forgot to put some names or links who are these hard science men who supported Rowbotham.

The names are all on that Library of Congress website along with their published works.

  I asked to reference for specific names who are these hard science people in this list. I can pick up titles like:
England's latter-day flatearthists. (The story of a correspondence.) Life and letters
The great American misfit; 26 bizarre personal histories
Flat earth. New statesman and nation - On the views of Henry Edgell, "the most persistent modern advocate of the theory that the earth is flat," who had just died at the age of 73.
Keeping the flat-earth faith -  On Charles K. Johnson and the International Flat Earth Research Society.
Loyalists of the flat earth. In his Eccentric lives and peculiar notions.
Better and flatter earths. In his Can you speak Venusian? A guide to the independent thinkers.
and so on
 It's history, biography, philosophy, etc. Not that science which can show the shape of earth.

Quote

The Library of Congress link was history reference.

Really? I wasn't aware they called their history section "science reference guides."

History is also science, as I mentioned. If you look at their reference guides then there are also topics on food, gardening other history related stuff and also topic on Picnics(http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/picnics.html). I guess it shows their definition of science.

Until you can disprove Rowbotham's work and each of the independent reviews, his work stands as truth.

Religious overtones.  Until someone's work can be disproved, is stands as being not disproved. 

Rotherham's "magic telescope" has not been disproved because you can just keep saying "get a more powerful telescope".  The fact that you have not presenting any evidence to support the restoration of ships' hull's is an inconvenient detail.  Nevertheless, it must be true, because Rowbothem didn't lie and it has not been proved false.  -Exactly the same as the God argument:  The bible does not lie, and god has not been proved to be false.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (J Christ).

Quote

Your claim: Dispersion means magnification. Your proof leads us to: Magnification involves dispersion. Your proof does not support your claim. Do get the text, please!

I never claimed that all dispersion is magnification. I did claim that all magnification is dispersion, though.

Read more. Post less.

I never claimed you did. Again FEers attack a strawman. I say that you claim that the Sun's light's dispersion causes magnification at sunrise and sunset. I say that your argument is faulty. A dispersion does not imply magnification.

Quote

Anyone applying the Zetetic principles would quickly reach the conclusion that he was wrong. I remember a high school ballistics experiment that proved #3 wrong. Did you miss school that day? I notice his error in #2 every time I see the Sun. I notice his error in #1 with each sunset I watch. You are still believing what you observe, aren't you? For someone who looks out his window to make observation, you sure seem reluctant to look at the sky.

Where did you prove that Rowbotham's explanations for the sun were wrong? I don't see any proof. Where's the proof?

I've answered your question above. If you can't see the proof, it's only because you won't see.

I would point out that it's great evidence that you won't look with an open mind to the world. How is it that you argue for GR and then say Rowbotham hasn't been proven wrong when he says that a object can "exhaust" its motion? Obviously Rowbotham didn't understand even grade school physics. How is it that the Review never pointed out this grievous error? Why is it that you don't speak out against this mistake?

Rowbotham's posits are absolutely observable. For example, I observe a flat earth every single day. Never once have I observed a round one.

What makes you think your view of a "flat earth" isn't as distorted as your view of the sun?

Quote

Nothing Rowbotham posits is observable.

Rowbotham's posits are absolutely observable. For example, I observe a flat earth every single day. Never once have I observed a round one.

Tom, what makes you believe that perceiving a very small portion of a very large earth as flat somehow or other contradicts RET?

No it was printed by the prattle rag ENaG review. This was not a peer review. If you don't understand the difference PM me.

When failing to reproduce his experiements he either ran away, or tried to pretend the result was as expected. Then he moved onto the next town of suckers.

Did you read Earth Not a Globe Review? What makes you an authority of its quality?

It's not just Earth Not a Globe Review which repeated Rowbotham's experiments. Check out the literature in my signature to see further repetitions over the years.

History is also science, as I mentioned. If you look at their reference guides then there are also topics on food, gardening other history related stuff and also topic on Picnics(http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/picnics.html). I guess it shows their definition of science.

Obviously the Library of Congress considers Flat Earth Theory to be a science, having categorized it under their science reference section.

Religious overtones.  Until someone's work can be disproved, is stands as being not disproved.

Rotherham's "magic telescope" has not been disproved because you can just keep saying "get a more powerful telescope".  The fact that you have not presenting any evidence to support the restoration of ships' hull's is an inconvenient detail.  Nevertheless, it must be true, because Rowbothem didn't lie and it has not been proved false.  -Exactly the same as the God argument:  The bible does not lie, and god has not been proved to be false.

Maybe your argument by analogy would have merit if the existence of god was proven and peer reviewed.

Tom, what makes you believe that perceiving a very small portion of a very large earth as flat somehow or other contradicts RET?

When I observe my surroundings there is nothing suggesting that the earth is a globe any more than there is anything suggesting that the earth is a banana. Why should I consider the unobservable without evidence?

The only thing which can be concluded when looking at a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. A honeybee is a honeybee until it is proven beyond doubt that it is a wasp.

You're proposing something unobservable and beyond human experience. The observable stands as truth until you've conclusively demonstrated otherwise.

Quote

No it was printed by the prattle rag ENaG review. This was not a peer review. If you don't understand the difference PM me.

When failing to reproduce his experiements he either ran away, or tried to pretend the result was as expected. Then he moved onto the next town of suckers.

Did you read Earth Not a Globe Review? What makes you an authority of its quality?

It's not just Earth Not a GLobe Review which repeated Rowbotham's experiments. Check out the literature in my signature to see further repetitions over the years.

Quote

History is also science, as I mentioned. If you look at their reference guides then there are also topics on food, gardening other history related stuff and also topic on Picnics(http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/picnics.html). I guess it shows their definition of science.

Obviously they consider Flat Earth Theory to be a science, having categorized it under their science reference section.

Quote

Religious overtones.  Until someone's work can be disproved, is stands as being not disproved.

Rotherham's "magic telescope" has not been disproved because you can just keep saying "get a more powerful telescope".  The fact that you have not presenting any evidence to support the restoration of ships' hull's is an inconvenient detail.  Nevertheless, it must be true, because Rowbothem didn't lie and it has not been proved false.  -Exactly the same as the God argument:  The bible does not lie, and god has not been proved to be false.

Maybe your argument by analogy would have merit if the existence of god was proven and peer reviewed.

Again, Rowbotham's peer review fails.

They did not detect, for example, that he incorrectly claimed that an object thrown from a ship's mast would exhaust its motion, violating the Newtonian and Einstein physics that an object in motion tends to remain in motion. That Rowbotham would make such a sophomoric mistake is bad enough, but that the Review never corrected his error means to every reasonable person that he and the following Review must be discounted severely.

Also, you seem to be unable to determine your stance. Do you support the EA, or not? If so, that you must reject R's restoration of  the ship's hull by telescope argument. You regularly argue against yourself. So again, were you lying when you said you could restore the waves on the beach or when you said that you know that light bends?

Anyone have some quarters to lend? I seem to be playing "Whack-A-Mole" again!

Quote

Religious overtones.  Until someone's work can be disproved, is stands as being not disproved.

Rotherham's "magic telescope" has not been disproved because you can just keep saying "get a more powerful telescope".  The fact that you have not presenting any evidence to support the restoration of ships' hull's is an inconvenient detail.  Nevertheless, it must be true, because Rowbothem didn't lie and it has not been proved false.  -Exactly the same as the God argument:  The bible does not lie, and god has not been proved to be false.

Maybe your argument by analogy would have merit if the existence of god was proven and peer reviewed.

LOL ! God's existence has been peer reviewed by 3 Billion followers, so it must be "proven".  (the same standard of peer review as Robothem's).

You need religion, Tom.

Quote

History is also science, as I mentioned. If you look at their reference guides then there are also topics on food, gardening other history related stuff and also topic on Picnics(http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/picnics.html). I guess it shows their definition of science.

Obviously the Library of Congress consider Flat Earth Theory to be a science, having categorized it under their science reference section.

  So, you accept then that Picnics are also science? And BBQ History and Adventure Vacations and Chocolate: A Resource Guide and Children's Gardens and Locating Health and Medical Information and Maple Sugaring and ...  I am quite willing to put The Flat Earth and its Advocates in same category.
 But they also have there - 1957-2007: Sputnik and the Space Race. I guess you must accept then the space flight and satellites.

And you still haven't pointed out to which books in your list I can rely for good hard science information. It's your list and you must know what you have there, so please, point out some specific books which contain hard science(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science) information about flat earth. Otherwise your referring to your list loses all credibility if you itself don't know to what you refer others.

LOL ! God's existence has been peer reviewed by 3 Billion followers, so it must be "proven".  (the same standard of peer review as Robothem's).

You need religion, Tom.

Which one of those three billion followers proved the existence of god? Last I checked they were still relying on "faith".

Rowbotham has experimentally proved through trial and experiment that the earth is a plane. His work has been corroborated many times by independent researchers. Until you can supply a peer reviewed study which contradicts his work, Rowbotham's work remains valid as evidence.

So, you accept then that Picnics are also science? And BBQ History and Adventure Vacations and Chocolate: A Resource Guide and Children's Gardens and Locating Health and Medical Information and Maple Sugaring and ...  I am quite willing to put The Flat Earth and its Advocates in same category.
 But they also have there - 1957-2007: Sputnik and the Space Race. I guess you must accept then the space flight and satellites.

I haven't read any of those books, so I wouldn't know what kind of scientific information they contain or why it was categorized as a science reference guide. I'm not sure why you're so worked up about some books about BBQ history and preparation being categorized under the topic of Food Science though, considering that if prepared wrongly, a steak can easily kill you. Sure sounds like something that should be listed under a science category to me.

But why would I need to accept the existence of satellites just because there's a book about it? 

And you still haven't pointed out to which books in your list I can rely for good hard science information.

You can rely on any of the Flat Earth books for good hard science information.

His work has been corroborated many times by independent researchers.

No it hasn't. He had a band of lackys going about the country peddling the same misinformation. These were neither researchers nor independent.

Quote

LOL ! God's existence has been peer reviewed by 3 Billion followers, so it must be "proven".  (the same standard of peer review as Robothem's).

You need religion, Tom.

Which one of those three billion followers peer reviewed the existence of god? Last I checked they were still relying on "faith".

You have read ENaG I take it? You do know that the whole point of ENaG was to show that the Biblical account of the earth is correct?

Let us now inquire earnestly, and in all respects fairly, whether the philosophical teachings of the Scriptures are consistent with those of Zetetic Astronomy; or, in other words, are descriptive of that which is, both in nature and in principle, demonstrably true.

...
You can rely on any of the Flat Earth books for good hard science information.

Patently false. Rowbothan and the Review failed in many ways. A object tossed from a ship's mast will not exhaust its motion, for example. We've corrected you repeatedly on this point. You seem unable or unwilling to address Rowbotham's gross errors.

Quote

LOL ! God's existence has been peer reviewed by 3 Billion followers, so it must be "proven".  (the same standard of peer review as Robothem's).

You need religion, Tom.

Which one of those three billion followers proved the existence of god? Last I checked they were still relying on "faith".

Rowbotham has experimentally proved through trial and experiment that the earth is a plane. His work has been corroborated many times by independent researchers. Until you can supply a peer reviewed study which contradicts his work, Rowbotham's work remains valid as evidence.

At last:.  That's an improvement from saying "It not be disproved, therefore it must be true"

BTW, I'm sure thousands of God-followers have witnessed miracles* and would personally testify his existence, citing their personal experiences as evidence.  For them, no one has been able to offer an acceptable explanation, so it must be divine;  The same reasoning as Zetetic FET

    * e.g. Visions, prayers being answered, weeping status, stigmata, medical cures, after death experiences, etc.

Quote

So, you accept then that Picnics are also science? And BBQ History and Adventure Vacations and Chocolate: A Resource Guide and Children's Gardens and Locating Health and Medical Information and Maple Sugaring and ...  I am quite willing to put The Flat Earth and its Advocates in same category.
 But they also have there - 1957-2007: Sputnik and the Space Race. I guess you must accept then the space flight and satellites.

I haven't read any of those books, so I wouldn't know what kind of scientific information they contain or why it was categorized as a science reference guide. I'm not sure why you're so worked up about some books about BBQ history and preparation being categorized under the topic of Food Science though, considering that if prepared wrongly, a steak can easily kill you. Sure sounds like something that should be listed under a science category to me.

But why would I need to accept the existence of satellites just because there's a book about it? 

Your argument was that because Flat earth Advocates related book list is on Congress Library Science reference list then I must accept it as hard science and evidence. So, why don't you accept the existence of satellites if they are on Congress Library Science reference list? And why I must accept Rowbothams work just because there is a book from him?
 Also the other things that they listed there... You agree then that Rowbothams work goes in same category of sciences like Maple Sugaring and Adventure Vacations.

Quote

And you still haven't pointed out to which books in your list I can rely for good hard science information.

You can rely on any of the Flat Earth books for good hard science information.

They are mostly history, biography, philosophy. So, I have trouble locating hard science books there. For the definition of hard science I rely to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science

Quote

Tom, what makes you believe that perceiving a very small portion of a very large earth as flat somehow or other contradicts RET?

When I observe my surroundings there is nothing suggesting that the earth is a globe any more than there is anything suggesting that the earth is a banana. Why should I consider the unobservable without evidence?

The only thing which can be concluded when looking at a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. A honeybee is a honeybee until it is proven beyond doubt that it is a wasp.

You're proposing something unobservable and beyond human experience. The observable stands as truth until you've conclusively demonstrated otherwise.

Tom, first off: There is a lot of evidence that the Earth is a globe, even you pet book "Earth not a Globe" proves it (if you actually read it and not just quote it as dogma).

Secondly, you argument is an argument from ignorance (and as a Zetetic you are required to use correct logic, not logical fallacies). Because you can't see a curve in your immediate surroundings and refuse to do anything that would allow you to confirm or disprove that initial assumption (again against the Zetetic philosophy), then of course, by deliberately remaining ignorant of any evidence of a RE you can not come to the conclusion that the Earth is Round.

But ignoring evidence is also against Zetetic philosophy, and even in EnaG, Rowbotham admonishes people who do that.

Tom, I am claiming that there is independently verifiable evidence that the Earth is actually a Globe. Are you willing to take in this evidence, and if this evidence contradicts a Flat Earth, are you willing, as a Zetetic, to accept that the Earth is really a globe? It will take a small amount of effort on your part as Zetetic philosophy requires direct observation by the Zetetic investigator (so a refusal to do the experiments is a direct denial of the Zetetic philosophy, and as you are such a proponent of Zetetic philosophy this would be extremely hypocritical of you).

Are you willing to do this. Are you willing to put your beliefs on the line. Or are you going to stand as a Troll?