Flat Earth Philosophy

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 10:00:06 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 09:14:39 AM

A hermit considers for the first time the shape of the earth. He has heard many religious theories and folk tales (oweing to the place he lived when he was young), but no theories that have a basis other than tradition. Being of a philosophical mindset, he concludes (along the lines I mentioned earlier) that the earth appears flat, and for that reason, it makes the most sense to believe what his senses tell him until he experiences sensorial evidence to the contrary.

Is it definite proof of the shape of the earth? No, and I explicitly said at the beginning that I did not regard it as such. However, from a philosophical perspective, it is the only logical conclusion.

If the hermit assumes that the earth has only a hundred miles of surface area

The hermit isn't assuming anything of the sort. He is just assuming that it is as it appears, which is the only assumption he can make, as he can hardly assume that it is not as it appears if he has followed my philosophical argument.

It is exactly as it appears, a few miles of earth with no observable curvature. There is no illusion. Your senses aren't lying. You have no reason not to trust your senses. You also have no reason to assume the shape of the entire earth can be extrapolated from any observations made from the earth's surface.

If there is no observable curvature, and we have acknowledged the primacy of the senses, then it is logical to conclude that there is no curvature, until something observable is presented which contradicts that conclusion but accords with what is observable.

If there is no observable curvature, and we have acknowledged the primacy of the senses, then it is logical to conclude that there is no curvature, until something observable is presented which contradicts that conclusion but accords with what is observable.

How about getting into an aeroplane and flying high enough to see that The Earth is curved - would that count?

The BBC showed a documentary recently where a presenter went up in a U2 - lucky b*st*rd!

This would count as an experiment which amplified what your senses can take in - more height = see more of The Earth = Earth not flat.

(i.e. it is science, not philosophy.)

To start on a lighter note, I honestly couldn't see anything in that inkblot test- does this make me crazy?

Anyway, even if I did see a face in it, I'm not sure that I would conclude it was intentional. I'm not ure I see your point with this example; just because I see something that looks like the face of Jesus in my toast, does not mean I think it is the face of Jesus. It's still clearly just browned toast.

As for your horizon example, I have to say that I really don't believe anyone would see a round horizon in that image if they were not already predisposed to look for one. Secondly, I'm not saying that this is proof the earth is flat, just that it is logical to make that initial conclusion based on appearance, and that only sensorial evidence (e.g. seeing a spherical earth from the moon, or some other observable disproof of FET) can logically remove that initial conclusion.

The fact that you did not see the face in the inkblot test just complements what I am saying: some people see a monster, some see a face, some see nothing. Direct sensory evidence does not give much of a solid basis for knowledge. The same happens with horizon photos: you have seen how a noob posts one of these photos about every month, honestly thinking his photo closes the debate. You cannot look at sensory evidence without predisposition! You cannot say "open mind, open mind, open mind" and then look at a photo, thinking you will get a clean, new view.

If there is no observable curvature, and we have acknowledged the primacy of the senses, then it is logical to conclude that there is no curvature, until something observable is presented which contradicts that conclusion but accords with what is observable.

Your conclusion would only be logical if you first assumed the earth is flat. If the earth were round, we wouldn't expect an observable curvature. All theories which predict no observable curvature would be equally valid based only on the observation of earth from its surface.

Yes, but the inkblot test is totally different. What you see is an inkblot. Even if I see something that looks like a face in there, it doesn't mean I think it's a face. Everyone knows they are seeing something that looks like a face, and that is a large distinction.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this one single perspective is the proof of FET. I'm just saying that philosophically speaking, it's the logical conclusion to make. Does it "close the debate"? No, but it is the logical starting point, which is why we present it as such.

How about getting into an aeroplane and flying high enough to see that The Earth is curved - would that count?

If it were clear that the earth was indeed curved, then yes.

Your conclusion would only be logical if you first assumed the earth is flat. If the earth were round, we wouldn't expect an observable curvature. All theories which predict no observable curvature would be equally valid based only on the observation of earth from its surface.

This isn't about what isn't observable, it's about what is observable. If we are admitting the philosophical primacy of the senses, then we must believe what we observe- you can't believe what you don't observe. The earth appears flat, therefore for the moment I must conclude that it is flat. I cannot observe what is unobservable.

This isn't about what isn't observable, it's about what is observable. If we are admitting the philosophical primacy of the senses, then we must believe what we observe- you can't believe what you don't observe. The earth appears flat, therefore for the moment I must conclude that it is flat. I cannot observe what is unobservable.

You don't observe the entire earth. Your senses tell you nothing significant about the earth in its entirety. Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature. The entire earth's shape is unobservable from its surface, therefore irrelevant to the philosophical question.

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2009, 05:10:38 AM

Philosophy is nothing but intellectual masturbation.

This statement reveals that you don't really understand what philosophy is. If you've ever thought about  your place within the universe, then you too are an intellectual wanker. Moreover, the analogy is revealing in itself- follow that line long enough, and you meet some serious obstacles. Besides, to quote Woody Allen, 'Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love'.

And philosophy has about as many practical benefits as masturbation.  It feels good for a while, but if you do it too much you start to feel awful lonely.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 06:02:04 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 04:05:46 AM

This argument only holds up if you start with RE assumptions. If you were to look out your window with no preconceptions, then there is no way that you could possibly conclude the earth was flat.

Exactly. Your senses aren't telling you the entire earth is flat or round. If you draw any conclusions based on what you see, it is your mind that is extrapolating the shape of the earth, not your senses. It is not a matter of trusting your senses. There is no illusion. You cannot know the shape of the earth based on sight alone (unless you manage to observe it in it's entirety). The only preconception required is that the earth's surface is very, very large.

Sorry, that was a mistake: I meant to say round. You can conclude it is flat, because it looks and feels that way, no matter where you are on the earth. It never looks and feels like a sphere.

How exactly would your senses be able to tell the difference between standing on a infinite plane (full of hills, valleys, mountains, etc.) and a sphere about 7800 miles in diameter (full of hills, valleys, mountains, etc.)?

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Your senses tell you the 3 miles in front of you appears flat. Your senses don't tell you anything about the other 24,898 miles. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (such as assuming what I see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety) is not sensorial in nature.

edited for clarity

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Your senses tell you the 3 miles in front of you appears flat. Your senses don't tell you anything about the other 24,898 miles.

Exactly.  That's kind of the point.

Anything abstract you add to the thought process (what I see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety) is not sensorial in nature.

This is actually about as concrete a reason as one can have to arrive at a conclusion about the shape of the Earth. 

Adding something abstract to the thought process would be trusting that pictures of the Earth from high above prove that it is round.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:20:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Your senses tell you the 3 miles in front of you appears flat. Your senses don't tell you anything about the other 24,898 miles.

Exactly.  That's kind of the point.

Quote

Anything abstract you add to the thought process (what I see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety) is not sensorial in nature.

This is actually about as concrete a reason as one can have to arrive at a conclusion about the shape of the Earth. 

Adding something abstract to the thought process would be trusting that pictures of the Earth from high above prove that it is round.

So we agree that our visual observation of the earth cannot be used to support either theory or lead to any conclusion of the earth's shape until we travel over 45,000 feet above the surface of the earth? I think you misread my post. Assuming what you see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety would be adding something abstract.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:27:32 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:20:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Your senses tell you the 3 miles in front of you appears flat. Your senses don't tell you anything about the other 24,898 miles.

Exactly.  That's kind of the point.

Quote

Anything abstract you add to the thought process (what I see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety) is not sensorial in nature.

This is actually about as concrete a reason as one can have to arrive at a conclusion about the shape of the Earth.  

Adding something abstract to the thought process would be trusting that pictures of the Earth from high above prove that it is round.

So we agree that our visual observation of the earth cannot be used to support either theory or lead to any conclusion of the earth's shape until we travel over 45,000 feet above the surface of the earth? I think you misread my post. Assuming what you see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety would be adding something abstract.

I've never seen any curvature first-hand, from any height.  I have seen flatness first-hand from all heights to which I have been.  Therefore a flat Earth is the default position and it's a round Earth that must be proven beyond shadow of doubt, if I am to be asked to reject what my senses tell me.  Until that happens there's simply no reason for me to not regard the Earth as flat.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:37:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:27:32 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:20:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Your senses tell you the 3 miles in front of you appears flat. Your senses don't tell you anything about the other 24,898 miles.

Exactly.  That's kind of the point.

Quote

Anything abstract you add to the thought process (what I see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety) is not sensorial in nature.

This is actually about as concrete a reason as one can have to arrive at a conclusion about the shape of the Earth.  

Adding something abstract to the thought process would be trusting that pictures of the Earth from high above prove that it is round.

So we agree that our visual observation of the earth cannot be used to support either theory or lead to any conclusion of the earth's shape until we travel over 45,000 feet above the surface of the earth? I think you misread my post. Assuming what you see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety would be adding something abstract.

I've never seen any curvature first-hand, from any height.  I have seen flatness first-hand from all heights to which I have been.  Therefore a flat Earth is the default position and it's a round Earth that must be proven beyond shadow of doubt, if I am to be asked to reject what my senses tell me.  Until that happens there's simply no reason for me to not regard the Earth as flat.

Your flat earth assumption ("the default position") is no more valid than a round earth based solely on observation. Neither depends on you rejecting what your senses tell you, since your senses alone have never told you the shape of the entire earth. More relevant to the thread, your assumption is abstract, not sensory, therefore irrelevant to whether you can trust your senses.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:40:18 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:37:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:27:32 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:20:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 11:11:12 AM

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Your senses only tell you that the portion of earth that is within your field of vision has no observable curvature.

Your senses tell you that it is flat. Your senses do not tell you that it 'doesn't appear to be curved'. You wouldn't look at a football and think 'it doesn't appear to be flat'. You would think 'it is round'. Your senses tell you that the earth is flat in as far as they can. Anything abstract you add to the thought process (field of vision, portion of the earth etc) is not sensorial in nature.

Your senses tell you the 3 miles in front of you appears flat. Your senses don't tell you anything about the other 24,898 miles.

Exactly.  That's kind of the point.

Quote

Anything abstract you add to the thought process (what I see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety) is not sensorial in nature.

This is actually about as concrete a reason as one can have to arrive at a conclusion about the shape of the Earth.  

Adding something abstract to the thought process would be trusting that pictures of the Earth from high above prove that it is round.

So we agree that our visual observation of the earth cannot be used to support either theory or lead to any conclusion of the earth's shape until we travel over 45,000 feet above the surface of the earth? I think you misread my post. Assuming what you see represents the shape of the earth in its entirety would be adding something abstract.

I've never seen any curvature first-hand, from any height.  I have seen flatness first-hand from all heights to which I have been.  Therefore a flat Earth is the default position and it's a round Earth that must be proven beyond shadow of doubt, if I am to be asked to reject what my senses tell me.  Until that happens there's simply no reason for me to not regard the Earth as flat.

Your flat earth assumption ("the default position") is no more valid than a round earth based solely on observation.

True, they would be equally valid.  Unfortunately I've never observed a round Earth.

Neither depends on you rejecting what your senses tell you, since your senses alone have never told you the shape of the entire earth. More relevant to the thread, your assumption is abstract, not sensory, therefore irrelevant to whether you can trust your senses.

This is more or less why I said earlier that the shape of the Earth is really a subjective opinion and that one's opinion one way or another is based on what exactly one considers valid evidence. 

I'm content in my opinion that it's flat because that's what my senses tell me.  When sufficient evidence is provided to me that it's round I will change my opinion.  I have yet to see such evidence.

True, they would be equally valid.  Unfortunately I've never observed a round Earth.

You've never observed a flat earth, either. Only apparently flat segments.

This is more or less why I said earlier that the shape of the Earth is really a subjective opinion and that one's opinion one way or another is based on what exactly one considers valid evidence. 

And what valid evidence supports your "default"?

I'm content in my opinion that it's flat because that's what my senses tell me.  When sufficient evidence is provided to me that it's round I will change my opinion.  I have yet to see such evidence.

Your senses tell you very little about the earth in its entirety. To make any assumption of the earth's entire shape based only on your limited observations is completely illogical, even if you trust your senses.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:58:52 AM

True, they would be equally valid.  Unfortunately I've never observed a round Earth.

You've never observed a flat earth, either. Only apparently flat segments.

Actually one very large flat segment since I've never transported anywhere a la Star Trek.  This is as valid an observation of the shape of the Earth as I'm likely to ever have.  So until I observe otherwise I'm content in my opinion that the Earth is flat because it is based on direct observation, the only thing I really have to relate to the world.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:58:52 AM

This is more or less why I said earlier that the shape of the Earth is really a subjective opinion and that one's opinion one way or another is based on what exactly one considers valid evidence. 

And what valid evidence supports your "default"?

The fact that I look down and see a flat Earth.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 11:58:52 AM

I'm content in my opinion that it's flat because that's what my senses tell me.  When sufficient evidence is provided to me that it's round I will change my opinion.  I have yet to see such evidence.

Your senses tell you very little about the earth in its entirety. To make any assumption of the earth's entire shape based only on your limited observations is completely illogical, even if you trust your senses.

I don't see why.  My observations are all I have to go on.  I have an open mind and as I've stated many times if someone presents to me sufficient evidence that the Earth is not what my senses perceive I will change my opinion.  No one has yet provided me with such evidence.

Interesting topic, though I'm not sure I agree that the shape of the Earth is really just the subject matter of philosophy. What immediately came to my mind reading this discussion was the Quine-Duhem thesis of underdetermination. The notion that many equally justifiable webs of belief can be made to fit one set of empirical data seems to have a strong relation to the notions about the Flat Earth/Round Earth epistemological argument - if Quine (and Duhem) were right, perhaps the FE and RE theses would both end up being unfalsifiable, since their potential subject matter, and the scope of their explanatory power, is so broad as to encompass a great deal of human experience. Round Earth revisionism (quantum mechanics et al) in the face of damning evidence against Newtonian gravity is one example of reshuffling the Quinean web in order to preserve the coherence of the Round Earth model - and globularists would no doubt say that ascribing certain phenomena to the Conspiracy constitutes exactly the same conceit by the opposing side.

If Quine were completely correct, then I believe the question of the shape of the Earth would not be solvable. No amount of new evidence gathered would amount to falsification of either theory; both would be fully equipped to interpret any new data in order to support (or at least comply with) their respective hypothesis. For example, one might think that a voyage to Antichtone might absolutely disqualify globularism once and for all. However, I have no doubt that globular fundamentalists would reshuffle their notion of the Earth's size and some of their beliefs about the North and South poles in an instant, in order to preserve their theory, just as they did when scientists discovered Newton's theories to be incompatible with empirical data. Globularists will say that we are doing the same when we dismiss 'evidence' provided by the Conspiracy.

The Quinean theory might be construed as giving equal credibility to Round Earth and Flat Earth models. Certainly, a greater concession than is afforded by most ardent globularists. However, I do not put much stock in Quinean philosophy of science. I really do believe that to all intents and purposes we can know definite facts about the universe, and that the flatness of the Earth is one of these facts. Globularism and Planarism are both falsifiable, the difference is that Globularism has faced countless falsifications and is only propped up by sociological forces rather than any sort of truth.

Actually one very large flat segment since I've never transported anywhere a la Star Trek.

Unless you're an astronaut, you could not have observed a very large segment.

This is as valid an observation of the shape of the Earth as I'm likely to ever have.  So until I observe otherwise I'm content in my opinion that the Earth is flat because it is based on direct observation, the only thing I really have to relate to the world.

Unfortunately, any segment you have observed was not large enough to logically draw any conclusions given the size of the earth.

The fact that I look down and see a flat Earth.

Once again, you don't see the earth, you see a very small portion of it.

I don't see why.  My observations are all I have to go on.  I have an open mind and as I've stated many times if someone presents to me sufficient evidence that the Earth is not what my senses perceive I will change my opinion.  No one has yet provided me with such evidence.

You have in incredibly closed mind. I believe that statement you have made many times is entirely untrue. You will never accept any evidence which contradicts your belief. Any such evidence you would claim is invalid/untrustworthy. Your senses have not perceived the earth's shape. Even if you were sent into space and were able to perceive the earth's shape, you would still probably deny it, insisting it is some kind of trick with projection screens and hydraulics.

You have in incredibly closed mind. I believe that statement you have made many times is entirely untrue. You will never accept any evidence which contradicts your belief. Any such evidence you would claim is invalid/untrustworthy. Your senses have not perceived the earth's shape. Even if you were sent into space and were able to perceive the earth's shape, you would still probably deny it, insisting it is some kind of trick with projection screens and hydraulics.

Exactly the same is true of globularism! When Newton's faulty physics was challenged, did globularists ditch their discredited worldview? Not at all, they just re-qualified their original thesis in order to fit the new evidence! You can't have your cake and eat it too. If re-qualification in the light of new evidence is disallowed, then globularism falls flat (no pun intended) by your own standards! If re-qualification in the light of new evidence IS allowed, then stop claiming that zetetic science is doing anything wrong when they do the same!

Unless you're an astronaut, you could not have observed a very large segment.

On the contrary, if I were a world traveler I could claim to have seen damn near all of it.  I'm not making that claim though.

Unfortunately, any segment you have observed was not large enough to logically draw any conclusions given the size of the earth.

You keep saying that but you haven't yet backed it up.  On what should I draw my conclusions about the shape of the Earth, if not what I observe of it?

You have in incredibly closed mind.

That makes no sense.  If I had an "incredibly closed mind" I would never have come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat in the first place.

I believe that statement you have made many times is entirely untrue. You will never accept any evidence which contradicts your belief. Any such evidence you would claim is invalid/untrustworthy.

If it's secondhand, why would it be the logical thing to regard it as otherwise?  Do you believe everything you're told?

Are you asking me? Yes I did.

No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't make a redundant post like this:

As I already pointed out, you have not observed that the earth is flat. You observed that there is no significant curvature over a tiny portion of it. A round earth does not require that you doubt your senses. You would only have to doubt your ability to extrapolate the shape of the entire earth from the tiny portion you can observe from its surface.

Did you read mine?

I did; my post was addressing what you've just wrote.

According to Solipsism, nothing.

Who said I was talking about Solipsism?

You can trust "I think, therefore I am".

You are aware of your own existence, but so what? You're just living in the confinements and illusions of your own mind, while the actual world runs independent of you. Thus, trusting reason alone will never tell you anything about the actual world, as stated in the Critique of Pure Reason. You need both reason and senses: everything that exists in the actual world are synthetic, while things that exist outside the actual world are analytic. Both rationalists and empiricists agree with this. I see a cup in front of me, I can interpret what a cup is and that cup is consistent with my interpretation, therefore what I'm seeing is indeed a cup and it exists in front of me. Here, I'm using both linguistic interpretation (reason) and sensory experiences because the claim "the cup is in front of me" is synthetic.

In particular, you cannot trust your senses absolutely, and everything in the actual world is perceived through them.

Therefore, along with reason, we have to trust our senses practically to perceive and know anything in the actual world.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 06:06:02 AM

Did you read mine?

I did; my post was addressing what you've just wrote.

Apparently, you needed to read it again, because you still claimed to see the entire earth's shape, which is obviously not possible from it's surface.

Apparently, you needed to read it again, because you still claimed to see the entire earth's shape, which is obviously not possible from it's surface.

You either don't understand Plato's cave or you're just illiterate.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but to address the opposition. As others have put it in a similar way, the allegory of the cave seems to be a refutation to the "look out your window" argument regarding the true nature of reality. Using our senses, we see the Earth is flat; we look out of our window and we see flatness of the Earth. Therefore, without doubting the only tool (our senses) to communicate with the actual world, we know the Earth is flat. Yet, if we assume what we see outside our window as the shadows seen by the prisoners portrayed in the allegory, then the roundness of the Earth may be assumed as the true form of reality Plato sought after. Thus, our sensory experiences may be deceiving.

Quote

Unless you're an astronaut, you could not have observed a very large segment.

On the contrary, if I were a world traveler I could claim to have seen damn near all of it.  I'm not making that claim though.

You can only observe a few miles at a time. You cannot observe a significant portion from the surface to examine if there is any gradual changes to the surface such as a curvature. You would examine many segments independently, all of which are an insignificant portion, and too many to consider what shape they all form when combined.

Quote

Unfortunately, any segment you have observed was not large enough to logically draw any conclusions given the size of the earth.

You keep saying that but you haven't yet backed it up.

Well, do you disagree that the earth's surface is 24,900 miles long, or do you disagree that there could be subtle changes such as a curvature which could exist, but not be observable from our field of view on the surface? Your philosophy seems to be you only believe in what you observe yourself, so I can't support my claim that the earth's surface is 24,900 miles long, but you would have to go survey the earth yourself, and the oceans are quite large. If you want evidence that curvature of a round earth would not be observable from the surface given the circumference, I can provide you with geometric equations.

On what should I draw my conclusions about the shape of the Earth, if not what I observe of it?

With your philosophy, you can't draw conslusions about the shape of the earth, unless you do some experiments to see if your sight is obstructed by the horizon and allow the assumption that light travels straight, or purchase a flight on a space shuttle or high altitude jet.

Quote

You have in incredibly closed mind.

That makes no sense.  If I had an "incredibly closed mind" I would never have come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat in the first place.

Regardless of what you do believe, you are closed-minded because you accept only what you can observe first-hand. Just because your belief is uncommon does not mean you are open-minded.

Quote

I believe that statement you have made many times is entirely untrue. You will never accept any evidence which contradicts your belief. Any such evidence you would claim is invalid/untrustworthy.

If it's secondhand, why would it be the logical thing to regard it as otherwise?  Do you believe everything you're told?

No, but to claim you would believe in a round earth if provided evidence, then claim anything second-hand is untrustworthy is a contradiction. Nobody could provide you with first-hand evidence that the earth is round, so stop making this claim if you refuse all second-hand evidence.

Second-hand evidence is acceptable when it is very unlikely to be fake. Of course that is very subjective, but some sources must be considered trustworthy if we are to build on their knowledge/observations and further our understanding of the world/universe we live in.

Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 01:21:32 PM

Apparently, you needed to read it again, because you still claimed to see the entire earth's shape, which is obviously not possible from it's surface.

You either don't understand Plato's cave or you're just illiterate.

Quote

I'm not trying to prove anything, but to address the opposition. As others have put it in a similar way, the allegory of the cave seems to be a refutation to the "look out your window" argument regarding the true nature of reality. Using our senses, we see the Earth is flat; we look out of our window and we see flatness of the Earth. Therefore, without doubting the only tool (our senses) to communicate with the actual world, we know the Earth is flat. Yet, if we assume what we see outside our window as the shadows seen by the prisoners portrayed in the allegory, then the roundness of the Earth may be assumed as the true form of reality Plato sought after. Thus, our sensory experiences may be deceiving.

I never heard of Plato's cave before reading this thread, so I probably don't understand it as well as you do, but I still clearly see that you mention the idea of knowing the earth is flat based on what you see from the surface. Given the size of the earth, we know that a round earth is possible, and doesn't contradict our senses. If you mean that someone who has not traveled the earth, and has no idea how large earth actually is, they probably couldn't imagine the actual size of it, or the subtle curvature which could eventually form a sphere. If you limit the size of the earth to what you have seen, then I guess you might think the earth is flat like the people in the cave think shadows are real. Was that your point?

You can only observe a few miles at a time. You cannot observe a significant portion from the surface to examine if there is any gradual changes to the surface such as a curvature. You would examine many segments independently, all of which are an insignificant portion, and too many to consider what shape they all form when combined.

The only observations I've ever made about the shape of the Earth indicated that it's flat.

Well, do you disagree that the earth's surface is 24,900 miles long, or do you disagree that there could be subtle changes such as a curvature which could exist, but not be observable from our field of view on the surface? Your philosophy seems to be you only believe in what you observe yourself, so I can't support my claim that the earth's surface is 24,900 miles long, but you would have to go survey the earth yourself, and the oceans are quite large. If you want evidence that curvature of a round earth would not be observable from the surface given the circumference, I can provide you with geometric equations.

I understand that the curvature would not be detectable if the Earth were round.  Unfortunately that fact provides no more evidence for me that the Earth is round than that it's, say, a moebius strip.

With your philosophy, you can't draw conslusions about the shape of the earth, unless you do some experiments to see if your sight is obstructed by the horizon and allow the assumption that light travels straight, or purchase a flight on a space shuttle or high altitude jet.

So I'm only allowed to draw conclusions based on certain specific conditions?  Now who's being closed-minded?

Regardless of what you do believe, you are closed-minded because you accept only what you can observe first-hand. Just because your belief is uncommon does not mean you are open-minded.

No, you misunderstand me.  I was brought up to believe in globularism.  If I was closed-minded, as you claim, I never would have changed my opinion.  That's kind of implied by the word "closed-minded".

No, but to claim you would believe in a round earth if provided evidence, then claim anything second-hand is untrustworthy is a contradiction. Nobody could provide you with first-hand evidence that the earth is round, so stop making this claim if you refuse all second-hand evidence.

If someone were to present me with valid evidence that I could personally verify I would change my opinion.

Second-hand evidence is acceptable when it is very unlikely to be fake. Of course that is very subjective, but some sources must be considered trustworthy if we are to build on their knowledge/observations and further our understanding of the world/universe we live in.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but the Catholic Church has claimed to be trustworthy for nearly 2,000 years, has a solid base of people who believe everything they say.  They claim to have solid, irrefutable evidence for the existence of God (eyewitness accounts, ontological arguments, etc).  Should I just accept their claims blindly based on the preponderance of evidence they present, or do you feel I'm justified in considering it with a critical eye?

If the latter, then why should NASA be inherently more trustworthy than the Catholic Church?

I understand that the curvature would not be detectable if the Earth were round.  Unfortunately that fact provides no more evidence for me that the Earth is round than that it's, say, a moebius strip.

Neither do your observations.

So I'm only allowed to draw conclusions based on certain specific conditions?  Now who's being closed-minded?

That was your philosophy that limits what evidence to draw conclusions from, not mine. In fact, your philosophy is why I called you closed-minded, and you apparently agree.

No, you misunderstand me.  I was brought up to believe in globularism.  If I was closed-minded, as you claim, I never would have changed my opinion.  That's kind of implied by the word "closed-minded".

Regardless of whether you changed your opinion in the past, it would appear impossible for you to change your current belief with your current philosophy until you leave the earth's atmosphere.

If someone were to present me with valid evidence that I could personally verify I would change my opinion.

Any evidence which you could verify would be indirect and can be refuted by intventing new theories. For example, we show you a photo of a ship disappearing behind the horizon. You can repeat the experiment to verify the results. However, I'm guessing you claim light is bent by EA. The only direct evidence would be to show you the earth from space.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but the Catholic Church has claimed to be trustworthy for nearly 2,000 years, has a solid base of people who believe everything they say.  They claim to have solid, irrefutable evidence for the existence of God (eyewitness accounts, ontological arguments, etc).  Should I just accept their claims blindly based on the preponderance of evidence they present, or do you feel I'm justified in considering it with a critical eye?

If the latter, then why should NASA be inherently more trustworthy than the Catholic Church?

I think we both agree we cannot trust any church. NASA, however, has provided an abundant amount of evidence, and their accomplishments have affected our daily lives. Their claims have been verified independently. When you consider it objectively, the conspiracy you propose is extremely unlikely.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 02:06:35 PM

I understand that the curvature would not be detectable if the Earth were round.  Unfortunately that fact provides no more evidence for me that the Earth is round than that it's, say, a moebius strip.

Neither do your observations.

They're not in any way the same thing.  You're basing your argument entirely on reason, which as Kant pointed out is deeply flawed.  I'm at least basing my argument on what I actually observe.

That was your philosophy that limits what evidence to draw conclusions from, not mine. In fact, your philosophy is why I called you closed-minded, and you apparently agree.

No, you're telling me that what I observe doesn't constitute valid evidence.  That's just absurd.

Regardless of whether you changed your opinion in the past, it would appear impossible for you to change your current belief with your current philosophy until you leave the earth's atmosphere.

Now you're just making baseless attacks on my character.

Any evidence which you could verify would be indirect

That's unfortunately true, and it's exactly why I'm skeptical of the evidence people try to present as "proof" of a round Earth.

I think we both agree we cannot trust any church. NASA, however, has provided an abundant amount of evidence

Yes, so has the Church.

and their accomplishments have affected our daily lives.

Yes, so have the Church's.

Their claims have been verified independently.

Again, so have the Church's, by many, many people.

Quote

That was your philosophy that limits what evidence to draw conclusions from, not mine. In fact, your philosophy is why I called you closed-minded, and you apparently agree.

No, you're telling me that what I observe doesn't constitute valid evidence.  That's just absurd.

You can draw all the conclusions that you want.  However, you can only draw those conclusions about what you actually observe.  To apply those conclusions to anything that you can't observe would be a fallacy.  To say that the small parcel of earth that you can observe is flat could be a valid statement.  To say that rest of the earth is flat based on your observation of a small portion of the earth would be a fallacy (argument from ignorance if I'm not mistaken).