Flat Earth Philosophy

As some of you may know, I have in the past made reference to a personal philosophical system which has led to my belief in Flat Earth Theory. As I have said, this is still very much a work in progress, and as it's more than a Flat Earth philosophy (belief in FET is simply a result), it is very complex. I had hoped to complete a draft by the time I graduated, but that's only a year away, and I don't see it happening by then.


However, in the last few days, while reading the topic 'Reality' in the Religion and Philosophy board, I began to think how solipsism and the views of Schopenhauer might pertain to Flat Earth Theory. I'm posting this thread here, rather than in R&P, because it specifically concerns FET. I must stress that this is not part of the philosophy I mentioned above. I actually haven't thought too much about this (I just mulled over it this weekend), and as it's not actually part of my other philosophical endeavours and I'm not too invested in it, I thought I'd throw it out here for others to discuss. It seems like an interesting idea (if limited in application and consequences), but I may not have spotted some obvious holes in my own argument.


Here's the essence of what I think. Solipsism essentially tells us that belief in anything beyond the confines of the mind is unjustified. For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to leave aside large aspects of solipsism, and discuss only how it relates to our senses, assuming our senses and our brain work the way we think they do (which is in itself a big assumption, but anyway). We interpret the world through our senses, and so everything we see, hear, feel etc is simply a series of electro-chemical signals interpreted by our brain, and as a consequence we can never truly know if what we experience via our senses has any relation to reality (see The Matrix and Brain in a vat). So far, so basic.


Now, in the topic I linked above, Benocrates gave us the following quote from Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation:

Theoretical egoism, of course, can never be refuted by proofs, yet in philosophy it has never been positively used otherwise than a skeptical sophism, i.e. for the sake of appearance. As a serious conviction, on the other hand, it could be found only in a madhouse; as such it would then need not so much a refutation as a cure. Therefore we?shall regard this skeptical argument of theoretical egoism, which here confronts us, as a small frontier fortress. Admittedly the fortress is impregnable, but the garrison can never sally forth from it, and therefore we can pass by it and leave it in our rear without danger.

Where Schopenhauer says 'theoretical egoism', you can read solipsism. Now, what Schopenhauer is saying is this: solipsism is a powerful and irrefutable argument, but it is of essentially no consequence. Yes, we can never theoretically trust our senses, but to deny them would be madness. In essence, the only sensible option is to assume that what our senses tell us is correct.


Now, here is the consequence for FET. If we must assume that what our senses tell us is true to trust them in the first place, then in order to be consistent we must do this always. Until we directly observe that the earth is round with our senses, we cannot assume that it is round based on theories alone. Otherwise there is a contradiction, because we are assuming senses are true and that what we observe really exists, but at the same time deciding that the earth is round and that our senses deceive us.


Bear in mind that I do not believe this argument 'proves' the earth is flat, or that it is an argument that supports FET. It is designed only to show the validity of the 'look out your window' argument that many of us use here. From a philosophical standoint, I believe it is necessary to believe what our senses tell us, because the alternative forces us to question the very nature of reality itself.


Thoughts?

Does something have to be observed directly with your senses to have validity?

Or can something be valid if observed indirectly?

Three examples of indirect observation would be:

1. A scene viewed through a closed-circuit television system,

2. A faint and distant galaxy seen through a large telescope, and

3. A microscopic, single-celled animal viewed through a powerful microscope.

Science would accept all three as valid, but I do not know what philosophers would think.

The "look out your window" argument is no argument at all, since what you observe does not indicate if the earth is flat or round. I think this philosophical question is more relevant with Bedford Level type experiments.  If I see a boat 6 miles away, is the earth flat or am I seeing a superior mirage? If you cannot see a boat, is the earth round, or is light bending on a flat earth to create an artificial horizon?

You can analyze what you observe to determine if what you see is real. Are the conditions correct to create a stable superior mirage? Are there any distortions in the image I see? Do I usually see something different? Is there any evidence to suggest that light is bending in such a way to create an artificial horizon?

I think you have to accept what you observe until you have reasonable doubt about what you see. I guess the subjectivity of the word "reasonable" is what would make the difference between a FE'er and a RE'er. If you don't accept your observations or the observations of others, then it would be impossible to have any knowledge of anything. There is nothing wrong with a reasonable amount of skepticism, though.

The "look out your window" argument is no argument at all, since what you observe does not indicate if the earth is flat or round.

Only if you assume first that the earth is a globe. If the earth looks flat, then it looks flat- end of story. There is only doubt if you invent a theory which involves it being round first.

Quote from: cdenley on June 28, 2009, 11:08:23 AM

The "look out your window" argument is no argument at all, since what you observe does not indicate if the earth is flat or round.

Only if you assume first that the earth is a globe. If the earth looks flat, then it looks flat- end of story. There is only doubt if you invent a theory which involves it being round first.

If you put an ant on a ferris wheel (like The London Eye) the ant would say that the ferris wheel is flat.

In fact the human:Earth ratio is better expressed by an ameoba on a ferris wheel, and even then the amoeba is too big.

My point being that common sense and trusting your senses can be misleading, because of vast differences in scale, ...

And as a scientist you are told not to rely on them very much.

Quote from: cdenley on June 28, 2009, 11:08:23 AM

The "look out your window" argument is no argument at all, since what you observe does not indicate if the earth is flat or round.

Only if you assume first that the earth is a globe. If the earth looks flat, then it looks flat- end of story. There is only doubt if you invent a theory which involves it being round first.

My point was that it is irrelevant to your philosophical question. The few miles of earth you can see appears flat because it is flat (except for a very small curvature which you would not expect to notice). There is no reason to doubt what you see because there is no illusion. You see that tiny piece of earth for what it is. Extrapolating the shape of the entire earth based on what you see out your window is not done with your senses.

NEE, I thought of writing something like this in here based on my views on empiricism, but you nailed it pretty well.

Now, here is the consequence for FET. If we must assume that what our senses tell us is true to trust them in the first place, then in order to be consistent we must do this always. Until we directly observe that the earth is round with our senses, we cannot assume that it is round based on theories alone. Otherwise there is a contradiction, because we are assuming senses are true and that what we observe really exists, but at the same time deciding that the earth is round and that our senses deceive us.

This is essentially the same line of reasoning my FE debating has evolved into most recently.  This is how I put it in the "why do you believe?" thread:

I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective.  It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence.  Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat.  So that's my stance.

Back to the OP, the relationship between solipsism and a Flat Earth is simple: according to this philosophy, every source of information is suspect, including your own senses. If you want to take solipsism to its full extent, you cannot know that Earth is round, you cannot know that Earth even exists.

What you see, for example a flat horizon, may be a trick of your senses. What you get indirectly, like photos of Earth from space, may be a trick on so many steps I cannot count them. What your intellect tells you, like the laws of Newton or the theories of Einstein, can only be applied to the suspect information your senses give you. In short, you cannot really know almost anything at all.

Solipsism does not bring you closer to a Flat Earth, or to a Round Earth, or, for that matter, to a Banana Earth. It only takes you to the realization that there is nothing interesting in the very limited world of the absolutely provable.

I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective.  It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence.  Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat.  So that's my stance.

Unless there's reason to be 100% sure that the lottery ticket in my pocket is a loser, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually the winner. So that's my stance, and I am willing to bet my house on it. Sound intelligent?

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.

You can even put it the other way, that the flatness of the Earth may indeed be the true form of reality. But, how can we know that? We never can, according to Kant. By definition, in the confinements of our local reference frame, the Earth could be truly round or flat. Therefore, I argue, and have been arguing, that the shape of the Earth is meaningless: it's how we perceive and interpret it.

EDIT: See the allegory of the cave.

Now, here is the consequence for FET. If we must assume that what our senses tell us is true to trust them in the first place, then in order to be consistent we must do this always. Until we directly observe that the earth is round with our senses, we cannot assume that it is round based on theories alone. Otherwise there is a contradiction, because we are assuming senses are true and that what we observe really exists, but at the same time deciding that the earth is round and that our senses deceive us.

Why would you trust your senses to determine the shape of the earth when you can't even trust them to tell you what color these squares are?

Then what should we trust to know about the actual world?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 01, 2009, 03:20:05 PM

I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective.  It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence.  Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat.  So that's my stance.

Unless there's reason to be 100% sure that the lottery ticket in my pocket is a loser, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually the winner. So that's my stance, and I am willing to bet my house on it. Sound intelligent?

On what evidence would you base your stance that the lottery ticket is the winner?

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 objective world, we know the Earth is flat.

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 even read the rest of my post?

Quote from: trig on June 28, 2009, 06:24:56 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 01, 2009, 03:20:05 PM

I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective.  It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence.  Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat.  So that's my stance.

Unless there's reason to be 100% sure that the lottery ticket in my pocket is a loser, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually the winner. So that's my stance, and I am willing to bet my house on it. Sound intelligent?

On what evidence would you base your stance that the lottery ticket is the winner?

I guess my point is the winner ticket is really subjective. It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence. Sound intelligent now?

Then what should we trust to know about the actual world?

According to Solipsism, nothing. You can trust "I think, therefore I am". In particular, you cannot trust your senses absolutely, and everything in the actual world is perceived through them.

Solipsism does not move you closer to FET, or to real science. It is so centered in absolute knowledge that negates any possibility of learning.

Solipsism does not move you closer to FET, or to real science. It is so centered in absolute knowledge that negates any possibility of learning.

Yes, and Schopenhauer points that out, and says that as a consequence we must ignore solipsism. The point is that in order to ignore solipsism, we have to put faith in our senses, because once we start to question them on one level, we must question them on every level.

My point being that common sense and trusting your senses can be misleading, because of vast differences in scale, ...

And as a scientist you are told not to rely on them very much.

Like I said, I'm looking at this from a philosophical perspective, hence the thread title. I'm not looking at this scientifically.

My point was that it is irrelevant to your philosophical question. The few miles of earth you can see appears flat because it is flat (except for a very small curvature which you would not expect to notice). There is no reason to doubt what you see because there is no illusion. You see that tiny piece of earth for what it is. Extrapolating the shape of the entire earth based on what you see out your window is not done with your senses.

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 round.

Why would you trust your senses to determine the shape of the earth when you can't even trust them to tell you what color these squares are?

Philosophically speaking, why trust them at all? After all, we have no reason to. Solipsism shows that if you start questioning your senses, there really is no end to it. Schopenhauer's point is that to do so may be philosophically sound, but to hold such an all-questioning viewpoint is something only a madman would really do. Thus, we must trust in our senses, or else logically, lose all trust in them altogether.

Quote from: markjo on June 28, 2009, 08:19:53 PM

Why would you trust your senses to determine the shape of the earth when you can't even trust them to tell you what color these squares are?

Philosophically speaking, why trust them at all? After all, we have no reason to. Solipsism shows that if you start questioning your senses, there really is no end to it. Schopenhauer's point is that to do so may be philosophically sound, but to hold such an all-questioning viewpoint is something only a madman would really do. Thus, we must trust in our senses, or else logically, lose all trust in them altogether.

Philosophy is nothing but intellectual masturbation.

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.

Did you even read the rest of my post?

Are you asking me? Yes I did. Did you read mine?

... In essence, the only sensible option is to assume that what our senses tell us is correct.

Now, here is the consequence for FET. If we must assume that what our senses tell us is true to trust them in the first place, then in order to be consistent we must do this always.

This is a fallacy in both philosophical and scientific terms. The negation of not trusting your senses is to trust your senses sometimes. Being consistent is not an unequivocal or unqualified recipe for success. Salt is a necessary nutrient that improves and strengthens the other flavors of the food, but I do not put it in my chocolate, just to be consistent.

And Philosophy is not about trusting or categorically denying the veracity of your senses. It is about combining what your senses, your intellect and knowledge tell you, in part because you can sometimes trust them, in part because you have nothing else. Just like in Science.

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'.

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.

This is a fallacy in both philosophical and scientific terms. The negation of not trusting your senses is to trust your senses sometimes. Being consistent is not an unequivocal or unqualified recipe for success. Salt is a necessary nutrient that improves and strengthens the other flavors of the food, but I do not put it in my chocolate, just to be consistent.

Success by what measure? I'm not saying that your senses automatically reveal the truth, merely that it is necessary for us to trust our senses and conclude the earth is flat, until we experience sensorial evidence to the contrary.

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

Another mistake? I doubt you have ever seen or felt the earth in its entirety. You cannot observe enough of it from the surface to determine its shape. You cannot make any conclusions based on your senses, regardless of your philosophy or assumptions.

Success by what measure? I'm not saying that your senses automatically reveal the truth, merely that it is necessary for us to trust our senses and conclude the earth is flat, until we experience sensorial evidence to the contrary.

And when you look at this Rorschach inkblot test, you will forever believe there is a face in it? What sensory evidence will tell you that there are no faces in it?



Sometimes you have to accept that your senses deceive you, while most of the time your senses give you a very good approximation of the truth. Also, in this photo:



some people honestly see a round horizon (for example, I do) and some people honestly see a flat horizon (as surely you do), and we cannot be both right. Sensory evidence, without the complement of a fair amount of other kinds of information, (in this case, a mathematical argument) gives you just a paradox of conflicting evidence.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 07:12:22 AM

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

Another mistake?

Yes, jesus, I don't know what's up with me at the moment =)

I doubt you have ever seen or felt the earth in its entirety. You cannot observe enough of it from the surface to determine its shape. You cannot make any conclusions based on your senses, regardless of your philosophy or assumptions.

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.

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.

You can even put it the other way, that the flatness of the Earth may indeed be the true form of reality. But, how can we know that? We never can, according to Kant. By definition, in the confinements of our local reference frame, the Earth could be truly round or flat. Therefore, I argue, and have been arguing, that the shape of the Earth is meaningless: it's how we perceive and interpret it.

EDIT: See the allegory of the cave.

I meant to reply to this earlier, but I somehow forgot about.

My reaction to that is that Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave' and 'Theory of Ideas/Forms' assume a higher reality exists that is in some way connected to the reality which we perceive, which is not necessarily the case. As we cannot know that what our senses in any way corresponds to the way things are, we are bound to accept them at face value, unless we have some other sensorial evidence which contradicts our previous interpretation without contradicting what we observe.

Now, if we are talking about 'reality' or 'truth' and the actual shape of the earth, then yes, you are correct- it simply isn't possible to know, philosophically speaking. But if we wish to function in the world as we perceive it (and I'm straying away from our discussion here), realistically we must assume that the world is indeed as we perceive it, and so must make our conclusions based on our senses. As such, when we observe an earth that appears flat, we must for the moment assume that it is, until some other sensorial evidence presents itself.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 07:12:22 AM

Success by what measure? I'm not saying that your senses automatically reveal the truth, merely that it is necessary for us to trust our senses and conclude the earth is flat, until we experience sensorial evidence to the contrary.

And when you look at this Rorschach inkblot test, you will forever believe there is a face in it? What sensory evidence will tell you that there are no faces in it?


IMAGE


Sometimes you have to accept that your senses deceive you, while most of the time your senses give you a very good approximation of the truth. Also, in this photo:


IMAGE


some people honestly see a round horizon (for example, I do) and some people honestly see a flat horizon (as surely you do), and we cannot be both right. Sensory evidence, without the complement of a fair amount of other kinds of information, (in this case, a mathematical argument) gives you just a paradox of conflicting evidence.

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.

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, then that would be a logical conclusion. Since I think we all agree that the earth's surface is about 24,900 miles long, we understand that what we observe is such a little portion of the entire earth, it would be illogical to draw conclusions of it's shape based on our senses. We know there is much more earth than what we can see at one time, and our senses cannot indicate the shape of the entire earth. Regardless of your philosophical perspective, it is the only logical conclusion, unless you make incorrect assumptions of the size of the earth.

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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 28, 2009, 08:30:47 PM

Quote from: trig on June 28, 2009, 06:24:56 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 01, 2009, 03:20:05 PM

I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective.  It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence.  Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat.  So that's my stance.

Unless there's reason to be 100% sure that the lottery ticket in my pocket is a loser, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually the winner. So that's my stance, and I am willing to bet my house on it. Sound intelligent?

On what evidence would you base your stance that the lottery ticket is the winner?

I guess my point is the winner ticket is really subjective. It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence. Sound intelligent now?

Well, if you have no evidence to start with that you have the winning ticket, then it's a foolish assumption to make.  If you have evidence that you have the winning ticket then it's a reasonable enough assumption until you see enough evidence to overturn it.

I look down and see a flat Earth.  That's the evidence on which I base my opinion that the Earth is flat.  It's fine and well to say "It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence", but if you have no evidence that you hold the winning ticket, it's an empty statement.  As demonstrated, I have evidence supporting my contention that the Earth is flat.  If you have no reason to think you have the winning ticket other than, say, wishful thinking, then it's a flawed analogy.  So I ask again, on what evidence do you base your opinion that you have the winning ticket?