Flat Earth Philosophy

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 02, 2009, 09:04:39 AM

Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 07:27:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 02, 2009, 06:47:26 AM

Can I go very high up and observe the earth? Not on my budget.

Not in your budget... but why do you discard evidence which others with budget have acquired?

Of course not, because I haven't observed it myself, so from my perspective, it's not sensorial evidence.

Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 07:27:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore

I'm observing the earth, and drawing conclusions about it.

 No, you don't observe The Earth. You observe piece of ground which is part of The Earth and draw your conclusions from there. I don't say that you can't do  it but I can say with total confidence that your conclusions are 99.99% wrong. Whatever the shape of earth is. I left the 0.01% for case where you can just accidentally got right answer because you are just guessing and there is probability that you can guess it right.

You can't say I'm not oberving the earth, because clearly I am.

You have judged your "sensorial" evidence to be reliable enough to draw a firm conclusion.    Your conclusion is invalid because you have failed to assess the reliability of this evidence.

I've seen enough evidence (photos, video, etc) to allow me to draw a logical conclusion. That's not really relevant to this thread, though.

How can you justify that these evidences are absolutely true so that they support your conclusion?

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 09:28:44 AM

I've seen enough evidence (photos, video, etc) to allow me to draw a logical conclusion. That's not really relevant to this thread, though.

How can you justify that these evidences are absolutely true so that they support your conclusion?

How can you justify that your evidences for a flat Earth are true? They're just as debatable--if not, more so--as that which pertains to RET. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase... "How can you justify"... Ask yourself and FET the same damn question.

How can you justify that your evidences for a flat Earth are true? They're just as debatable--if not, more so--as that which pertains to RET. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase... "How can you justify"... Ask yourself and FET the same damn question.

Glad you admit it; that's the point of my argument. Neither of us can truly know the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Jack on July 02, 2009, 09:40:33 AM

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 09:28:44 AM

I've seen enough evidence (photos, video, etc) to allow me to draw a logical conclusion. That's not really relevant to this thread, though.

How can you justify that these evidences are absolutely true so that they support your conclusion?

How can you justify that your evidences for a flat Earth are true? They're just as debatable--if not, more so--as that which pertains to RET. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase... "How can you justify"... Ask yourself and FET the same damn question.

But if both sides are going to concede that their belief systems have equal levels of unjustifiability, doesn't it completely invalidate the notion of the inquiry as a whole?

Hence my contention that:

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.

...the difference is that Globularism has faced countless falsifications and is only propped up by sociological forces rather than any sort of truth.

For the benefit of REers, can you please list some of the "falsifications" which have lead to the collapse Globularist theory.

Also, please define "truth", as you have used it outside of a mathematical or religious context.

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 09:28:44 AM

I've seen enough evidence (photos, video, etc) to allow me to draw a logical conclusion. That's not really relevant to this thread, though.

How can you justify that these evidences are absolutely true so that they support your conclusion?

As demonstrated in the thread, there is no absolute truth. You have to use evidence to draw conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. I logically and objectively determined that all doubts FE'ers have raised about the shape of the earth are not reasonable enough to withdraw my conclusion.

The biggest fallacy in this thread is the quality of "direct sensory evidence" given to the observation of the flat horizon.

Anyone who has studied even for a few hours the characteristics of our sensory organs knows that almost no sensory perceptions are direct, uninterpreted input from our eyes, ears, noses, skin or mouths. Every input passes through a massive filtering, processing, completion and interpretation process, of which just a few examples are:

• The less than perfect focus of our retinas is smoothed out so we think the image on our retinas is much better than it really is
• The very poor quality of our peripheral vision is compensated using historical information, so we think we have almost 180 degrees of high quality vision. In reality, we only have a small high resolution spot in the center of the retina and much less resolution in every other place.
• The blind spot in our retinas is filled with historical information, making the blind spot invisible to those who do not know how to make it apparent.
• Smells bring immediate, involuntary memories and affect our perception of situations.
• Smells are filtered, so you are aware only of the ones your brain has subconsciously decided you want to know about.
• Your skin can feel the details of a human hair, and yet the number of neurons dedicated to your skin is far too small to easily explain how it manages.
• Everyone starts to learn how to tune his own senses to get the maximum information from the minimum effort since the very day our brains start to work, about 12 to 15 weeks after conception.

And the list goes on and on...

A camera makes a direct image from whatever is in front of it. Our eyes only create an image after filters, pattern recognition, transformations, and, yes, preconceptions shape what we finally see with our conscious minds. And the same is true for all of our senses.

Your idea that you can see "a flat Earth" without preconceptions is just false. Even the hamburger you are about to eat is seen only after a myriad of preconceptions shape your vision.

Quote from: With Honor on July 02, 2009, 09:52:02 AM

How can you justify that your evidences for a flat Earth are true? They're just as debatable--if not, more so--as that which pertains to RET. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase... "How can you justify"... Ask yourself and FET the same damn question.

Glad you admit it; that's the point of my argument. Neither of us can truly know the shape of the Earth.

If I'm not mistaken--correct me if I'm wrong--you're an empiricist. From an empirical viewpoint; sure, of course we don't know what the Earth truly looks like. Neither you or I have ever seen the Earth from space. That's true, I agree with you. However, given the relative dearth of information supporting a flat Earth, it seems more logical to support the spherical approach to defining Earth's dimensions. We can't KNOW, but we can logically ASSUME, to save ourselves the trouble of remaining in the dark.


On the other hand, if you're just playing the part because it's fun and interesting, I fully support that. You're right. Empirically, we CAN'T know the Earth's true dimensions.

EDIT: Astronauts can know the Earth's true shape, empirically. This bring me to my biggest problem with FET: The fact that FET denies astronauts and people who HAVE seen Earth from space as being real. That's complete bullshit. Everything else about FET is fine, except for that. You can't just outright call something fake simply because it disproves something you would like to be real.

In fact, that's probably why the "conspiracy" was conceived. It was a simple answer to the cold hard fact that some people really have empirically experienced the Earth as round. Answer to that? Call them fake. Gee, that's easy.

The biggest fallacy in this thread is the quality of "direct sensory evidence" given to the observation of the flat horizon.

Anyone who has studied even for a few hours the characteristics of our sensory organs knows that almost no sensory perceptions are direct, uninterpreted input from our eyes, ears, noses, skin or mouths. Every input passes through a massive filtering, processing, completion and interpretation process, of which just a few examples are:

• The less than perfect focus of our retinas is smoothed out so we think the image on our retinas is much better than it really is
• The very poor quality of our peripheral vision is compensated using historical information, so we think we have almost 180 degrees of high quality vision. In reality, we only have a small high resolution spot in the center of the retina and much less resolution in every other place.
• The blind spot in our retinas is filled with historical information, making the blind spot invisible to those who do not know how to make it apparent.
• Smells bring immediate, involuntary memories and affect our perception of situations.
• Smells are filtered, so you are aware only of the ones your brain has subconsciously decided you want to know about.
• Your skin can feel the details of a human hair, and yet the number of neurons dedicated to your skin is far too small to easily explain how it manages.
• Everyone starts to learn how to tune his own senses to get the maximum information from the minimum effort since the very day our brains start to work, about 12 to 15 weeks after conception.

And the list goes on and on...

A camera makes a direct image from whatever is in front of it. Our eyes only create an image after filters, pattern recognition, transformations, and, yes, preconceptions shape what we finally see with our conscious minds. And the same is true for all of our senses.

Your idea that you can see "a flat Earth" without preconceptions is just false. Even the hamburger you are about to eat is seen only after a myriad of preconceptions shape your vision.

Yes, we're all very aware of the unreliability of the senses. The points you raise are minor by comparison to the points I raised in the opening post. The point is, we have to accept what our senses tell us, or else end up questioning reality itself. After all, how do we even know the hamburger is there in the first place?

Yes, we're all very aware of the unreliability of the senses. The points you raise are minor by comparison to the points I raised in the opening post. The point is, we have to accept what our senses tell us, or else end up questioning reality itself. After all, how do we even know the hamburger is there in the first place?

You can only trust your senses within their limitations.  However, trusting only your senses seems at least as foolish as not trusting them at all.

If I'm not mistaken--correct me if I'm wrong--you're an empiricist. From an empirical viewpoint; sure, of course we don't know what the Earth truly looks like. Neither you or I have ever seen the Earth from space. That's true, I agree with you. However, given the relative dearth of information supporting a flat Earth, it seems more logical to support the spherical approach to defining Earth's dimensions. We can't KNOW, but we can logically ASSUME, to save ourselves the trouble of remaining in the dark.

Empiricism is not the same as "Zetetic Science". Experience, whether through direct experimentation or sharing experiences with others, is the basis of Empiricism. In fact, Empricicism (at least some of its variants) is the basis for the Scientific Method and therefore is the basis for Science.

On the other hand, "Zetetic Science" is all about not sharing experiences (more about telling you which experiments are valid and which are not, but lets leave that for later). The paranoid aspect of Zeteticism is nowhere in Empiricism. You can understand the work of others and incorporate it into your own knowledge base. Just don't accept what you do not understand.

If I'm not mistaken--correct me if I'm wrong--you're an empiricist.

I favor both empiricism and rationalism. Sensory experiences alone are meaningless without interpretation by reason.

We can't KNOW, but we can logically ASSUME, to save ourselves the trouble of remaining in the dark.

We can logically assume that the Earth is round, but doing so cannot tell us anything about the actual world. For example, you can assume that the Nazis won the war in any logically possible world, but this is false in the actual world even though it is not necessarily false.

In fact, that's probably why the "conspiracy" was conceived. It was a simple answer to the cold hard fact that some people really have empirically experienced the Earth as round. Answer to that? Call them fake. Gee, that's easy.

The burden is on RE'ers to justify the validity of the evidences they provide.

Glad you admit it; that's the point of my argument. Neither of us can truly know the shape of the Earth.

Yes, we can. The sum of the vertex angles of spherical triangles is always larger than the sum of the angles of plane triangles, which is exactly 180?.

I favor both empiricism and rationalism. Sensory experiences alone are meaningless without interpretation by reason.

True.

We can logically assume that the Earth is round, but doing so cannot tell us anything about the actual world. For example, you can assume that the Nazis won the war in any logically possible world, but this is false in the actual world even though it is not necessarily false.

The first sentence above is acceptable. Of course we don't actually KNOW. I conceded that. However, the Nazi analogy is just a little out of place and strange. What are you trying to say? We actually do know who won the war. It happened. It's done. Germany lost. Why would you assume otherwise in another world? That's just turning it into a "what if" scenario, which again is what I think FET revolves around. It's not valid. And it's pointless.

The burden is on RE'ers to justify the validity of the evidences they provide.

No. More valid/heavily supported evidence exists in RE'ers favor. Changing that theory to FET is what should require more justification. Have you ever heard of the principal of parsimony in human/organismic genomics? It also applies to physical sciences. In general, when two possible explanations exist of equal uncertainty, it is more acceptable to take the "most parsimonious" route--meaning, essentially, that believing in a really distended, stretched, and all-in-all ridiculous theory (FET) over a more solidified theory (RET) is illogical and pointless.

We don't know the Earth is round for a fact. Obviously we haven't personally experienced. We can assume the Earth is round for the sake of logic and reason, because the evidence supporting it is far more persuasive and parsimonious than that which supports a flat Earth.

Simply put, there is no reason for me to believe in FET over RET. Let FE'ers justify their theory to me; the burden is on them--they are the newcomers in this new age.

Empiricism is not the same as "Zetetic Science". Experience, whether through direct experimentation or sharing experiences with others, is the basis of Empiricism. In fact, Empricicism (at least some of its variants) is the basis for the Scientific Method and therefore is the basis for Science.

On the other hand, "Zetetic Science" is all about not sharing experiences (more about telling you which experiments are valid and which are not, but lets leave that for later). The paranoid aspect of Zeteticism is nowhere in Empiricism. You can understand the work of others and incorporate it into your own knowledge base. Just don't accept what you do not understand.

Huh? I think I already know what "empiricism" means. Why did you feel obligated to describe its definition to me in detail? Also, no offense, but I don't care about "Zetetic Science" at all. I'm not really sure why you brought it up. Thanks for letting me know...

However, the Nazi analogy is just a little out of place and strange. What are you trying to say? We actually do know who won the war. It happened. It's done. Germany lost. Why would you assume otherwise in another world? That's just turning it into a "what if" scenario, which again is what I think FET revolves around. It's not valid. And it's pointless.

It's something known as alternative history in layman terms. In logic, we call it "possible world" or "logical possibility". You can logically assume in any possible worlds, but these logically possible worlds are different from the actual world. This means what you assume is not necessarily false, even though it is contingently false. For example, it is not necessarily false or logically impossible that Germany decided not to invade the Soviet Union; it's absolutely logically possible for that to happen, even though it did not happen. Thus, A is contingently true (or false) if and only if A is true (or false) in the actual world but A is not necessarily true (or false).

It's completely valid. You can logically assume the Earth to be round or flat even if it does not correspond to the actual world; that's all there is to reason and logic without any empirical methods.

Simply put, there is no reason for me to believe in FET over RET. Let FE'ers justify their theory to me; the burden is on them--they are the newcomers in this new age.

You people came here to prove us wrong. Thus, the burden is on you.

Quote from: With Honor on July 05, 2009, 09:52:05 AM

Simply put, there is no reason for me to believe in FET over RET. Let FE'ers justify their theory to me; the burden is on them--they are the newcomers in this new age.

You people came here to prove us wrong. Thus, the burden is on you.

But the problem is that FE hasn't proven yet itself to be right. You don't even have map and the schematic of solar system.

But the problem is that FE hasn't proven yet itself to be right.

Yes it has. Check out the library of literature in my signature link.

Quote from: With Honor on July 05, 2009, 09:52:05 AM

However, the Nazi analogy is just a little out of place and strange. What are you trying to say? We actually do know who won the war. It happened. It's done. Germany lost. Why would you assume otherwise in another world? That's just turning it into a "what if" scenario, which again is what I think FET revolves around. It's not valid. And it's pointless.

It's something known as alternative history in layman terms. In logic, we call it "possible world" or "logical possibility". You can logically assume in any possible worlds, but these logically possible worlds are different from the actual world. This means what you assume is not necessarily false, even though it is contingently false. For example, it is not necessarily false or logically impossible that Germany decided not to invade the Soviet Union; it's absolutely logically possible for that to happen, even though it did not happen. Thus, A is contingently true (or false) if and only if A is true (or false) in the actual world but A is not necessarily true (or false).

It's completely valid. You can logically assume the Earth to be round or flat even if it does not correspond to the actual world; that's all there is to reason and logic without any empirical methods.

Quote from: With Honor on July 05, 2009, 09:52:05 AM

Simply put, there is no reason for me to believe in FET over RET. Let FE'ers justify their theory to me; the burden is on them--they are the newcomers in this new age.

You people came here to prove us wrong. Thus, the burden is on you.

No. I came here to evaluate the validity of the evidence. I didn't find any. I'm not here to prove something that's been proven already. I'm also not here to play with "logical possibilities". I support you in your interest in pondering logical possibilities; however, I have my own hobbies/activities/interests.

You did answer my question though, and for that I'm thankful. I haven't seen a single discussion or debate on this site that has reached a reasonable conclusion until now.

So in a nutshell: Shit happens, and that's what it is. Other shit can happen, and it's okay to think about and ponder these alternative "logical possibilities". That said, the shit that truly happens is what the truth is. In other words: The Earth is round. It's also possible that in another scenario, the Earth could be conceived as flat. However, unfortunately, that is not the actual case, but oh well, it's fun to ponder anyways, for the sake of "logic".


Cool.

Thanks.

Bye.

Quote

But the problem is that FE hasn't proven yet itself to be right.

Yes it has. Check out the library of literature in my signature link.

Unrelated side-note question:

Who is this joker, "Tom Bishop"? In my few days exploring this board, I've noticed that this tacky character throws in useless tidbits of crap information, in a very sporadic and haphazard manner--all over the place.

Why hasn't he been banned/castigated somehow for this?

Quote

But the problem is that FE hasn't proven yet itself to be right.

Yes it has. Check out the library of literature in my signature link.

 Checked and tried to get some relevant info from there. Nothing available. Things which are available online don't provide any scientific info on flat earth only history, biographies and speculations. Books which are not available online are not available to anyone including you. You haven't read them itself and are unable to quote even the one relevant paragraph from any of these books. So, not any proof for flat earth and you still don't have map and the schematics of solar system.

Unrelated side-note question:

Who is this joker, "Tom Bishop"? In my few days exploring this board, I've noticed that this tacky character throws in useless tidbits of crap information, in a very sporadic and haphazard manner--all over the place.

Why hasn't he been banned/castigated somehow for this?

  No one really knows what or who he/she/it is(Maybe Daniel knows). There are theories that it's somewhat automated bot or it's shared account what FE advocates use as they see fit and post under it. And you can't ban him. It is the sacrilege.
 

Solipsism essentially tells us that belief in anything beyond the confines of the mind is unjustified.

Modern technology tells us that solipsism is a dead duck. If people in the past had never had any belief beyond the confines of their mind you wouldn't have this discussion using this media. Where do you think humanity would be if people had never believed that what they see must be the absolute truth?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 28, 2009, 06:05:58 AM

Solipsism essentially tells us that belief in anything beyond the confines of the mind is unjustified.

Modern technology tells us that solipsism is a dead duck. If people in the past had never had any belief beyond the confines of their mind you wouldn't have this discussion using this media. Where do you think humanity would be if people had never believed that what they see must be the absolute truth?

Congratulations, you just completely missed the point. Did you read the Schopenhauer quote I posted?

Yes. I took this "we can pass by it and leave it in our rear without danger. to mean that theoretical egoism was irrelevant. I'm probably wrong so you are probably right in that I must have missed the point. if I have missed the point I venture to suggest that others may have done so too.

I don't know everything but I like to understand things and just putting up quotes does not always help understanding.

As far as the last sentence in your OP goes, what is wrong with questioning the very nature of reality itself. I'd consider that's part of progress

I look at the earth. It looks flat. Therefore I conclude it is flat. I never start considering what different bits may or may not be. In the same way, when I look at a football (i.e. 'soccer' ball) and it looks round, I don't start thinking 'well, this bit of it looks round, but there could be a pyramid on the other side'. It really is that simple.

No, not that simple. You still use thinking and use your previous experiences. You have seen similar shapes before and you have learned that this shape is called round. You have seen footballs before and learned that these things are called footballs. You have observed them in their full entirety and your thought process assumes that there is entire and fully round football in other persons arm, if you see one. So, it is not "without thinking" and without some logic or assuming.
 But here you can go totally wrong if you don't do additional research and observe and touch this supposed football itself. It may be a half football because you don't see on the other side to detect the missing half. It may be some other round thing which is made look like football. May be it is only picture which is really realistically done. Moral is, you can say that we must trust only our senses but we must also do more research and not only accept our first cursory perception as the certain truth. As you do exactly with the shape of earth. You take one cursory glance to the ground and there it is, absolute truth - earth is flat. You don't go anywhere else but sit on your first impression and say that it is truth. Why? Why don't you explore further, fly higher, learn spherical trigonometry and try to do some measurements on the ground?

NEEMAN, or Lord Wilmore.  What do your senses tell you when you see the sun set?

NEEMAN, or Lord Wilmore.  What do your senses tell you when you see the sun set?

Wilmore, if you want. I have to confess tha in my entire life I have never seen the sun set against a flat horizon- the region I live in is on the one hand very hilly (lots of glacial drumlins), but on the other hand has almost no high vantage points. I generally see the sun move across the sky before it is eventually obscured by some feature of the landscape.

Quote from: Ragnarr on July 06, 2009, 10:21:47 AM

NEEMAN, or Lord Wilmore.  What do your senses tell you when you see the sun set?

Wilmore, if you want. I have to confess tha in my entire life I have never seen the sun set against a flat horizon- the region I live in is on the one hand very hilly (lots of glacial drumlins), but on the other hand has almost no high vantage points. I generally see the sun move across the sky before it is eventually obscured by some feature of the landscape.

Oops, you forgot to address his question:

"What do your senses tell you when you see the sun set?"

Whether or not the horizon is jagged due to mountainous skyline features shouldn't really be important. Do you think the sun stops if set against a flat horizon... ?

What does the sun have to do with the shape of the earth?

Well if we decude the sun is round, that kinda buggers up the whole FE theory, doesn't it. So it kinda is relevant to the shape of the earth, wouldn't you agree?