Questions

Please explain:

 - Wireless Internet (I'm sure many FEers use it)
 - Why is round earth theory dismissed?
 - if the earth was round why would we fall of of it?
 
I do not expect you to respond to them in order (ie: top to bottom) , however i do expect you to respond with sensible answers to as many if not to tall the points i have made.
Thank you
 

Please explain:

 - Wireless Internet (I'm sure many FEers use it)
 - Why is round earth theory dismissed?
 - if the earth was round why would we fall of of it?
 
I do not expect you to respond to them in order (ie: top to bottom) , however i do expect you to respond with sensible answers to as many if not to tall the points i have made.
Thank you
 

We wouldn't fall off the earth if it was round.  Why do you think we would?

Wireless internet, otherwise known as IEEE 802.11 and WiFi, is the use of radio signals to supply (most often) a wireless lan network to various devices.

There are several reasons we believe in the flat earth theory.  Just look around the site a bit and I'm sure some will pop up.

It was the "looking around the site" that led me to believe we would fall off the earth if it were round, according to all the: Sand on Beach Ball analogies. Wouldn't certain land masses such as mountains kinda interfere a lot with a wireless internet connection? I'm not talkin' LAN, I'm talking WAN (me speaking to you for instance). Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.     

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

It never ceases to amaze me that you can't see how pathetically weak that argument is!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 02:35:44 AM

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

It never ceases to amaze me that you can't see how pathetically weak that argument is!

What's wrong with it? If you want to see a flat earth for yourself, it's there for all to see.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on November 10, 2009, 02:41:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 02:35:44 AM

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

It never ceases to amaze me that you can't see how pathetically weak that argument is!

What's wrong with it? If you want to see a flat earth for yourself, it's there for all to see.

By the same logic:
Look at your picture, is there any reason to assume there is a brain in your head?  I certainly can't see one, therefore there must not be one.  You must be operated via the conspiracy.

they are just trying to push your buttons and start an argument

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

My neighborhood isn't flat.  What's that supposed to prove?

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on November 10, 2009, 02:41:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 02:35:44 AM

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

It never ceases to amaze me that you can't see how pathetically weak that argument is!

What's wrong with it? If you want to see a flat earth for yourself, it's there for all to see.

When I go for a walk, I see a world that is obviously round.

Your argument is entirely flawed.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on November 10, 2009, 02:41:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 02:35:44 AM

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

It never ceases to amaze me that you can't see how pathetically weak that argument is!

What's wrong with it? If you want to see a flat earth for yourself, it's there for all to see.

What makes it such a pathetically weak argument is that, given the size of the earth, it would look flat locally to any observer whether it actually were or not.  Thus the mere fact that it looks flat to the un-aided eye when viewing one's local neighborhood proves absolutely nothing one way or the other.  For most practical, local purposes, such as building a house, the presumption of flatness is as accurate and precise as any reasonable person would want to be.  However, for more precise processes, the presumption of the earth's flatness is not good enough.  For example: Libbey Owens in particular (and probably other glass manufacturers) went so far as to compensate for the error introduced by the earth's curvature by designing and building special assembly jigs and tables that straighten that error in order to produce plate glass windows that are truly flat optically for their entire width and length in order to minimize to the extent possible distorting whatever is viewed through them due to deviation from true flatness.  I read about this many years ago, but so far have not been able to find a specific reference to that in my internet searches.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 03:38:24 AM

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on November 10, 2009, 02:41:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2009, 02:35:44 AM

Quote from: contract_feral on November 10, 2009, 02:04:16 AM

Oh and for the several reasons to believe in FET, I have found none, only superstitions and conspiracies.      

Have you tried taking a walk around your neighborhood?

It never ceases to amaze me that you can't see how pathetically weak that argument is!

that my friend is possibly one of the best replies you could have ever given to these clowns.

What's wrong with it? If you want to see a flat earth for yourself, it's there for all to see.

By the same logic:
Look at your picture, is there any reason to assume there is a brain in your head?  I certainly can't see one, therefore there must not be one.  You must be operated via the conspiracy.

That my friend, was possibly the best reply you could have given to thse clowns. Notice how now they have also stopped replying.

When I go for a walk, I see a world that is obviously round.

Please explain

By the same logic:
Look at your picture, is there any reason to assume there is a brain in your head?  I certainly can't see one, therefore there must not be one.  You must be operated via the conspiracy.

Nice one!

Wow! The FEers argument very convincing when a simple question cant be answered. Its been two days now.

Philosophically, it makes perfect sense to assume that the Earth is flat based on its appearance. Here is why:

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:

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

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.

An important addendum is that when I talk about beliving 'our senses', I specifically mean first hand sensorial evidence. I believe this is a solid argument for the primacy of first-hand sensorial evidence.

Philosophically, it makes perfect sense to assume that the Earth is flat based on its appearance. Here is why:

*snip*

An important addendum is that when I talk about beliving 'our senses', I specifically mean first hand sensorial evidence. I believe this is a solid argument for the primacy of first-hand sensorial evidence.

Just out of curiosity, how does it make perfect philosophical sense to assume that the rest of the earth (regardless of shape) even exists beyond the limits of your first hand sensory perception?  Before my father passed away, had dementia to the point where we could no longer trust his memories.

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

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.

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

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.

By the "look out your window" argument a desert dweller who has never been out of the desert, must believe the rest of the world is a desert.  Someone growing up on a tiny tropical island would have to believe the entire world is covered with water, and constantly warm.  Both views are not only incompatible, but incorrect.  Each could be presented with first hand accounts from others that there are other terrains and climates as well as pictures to indicate as such.  Books, magazines, pictures, newspapers, would all contain accounts to show that there is more out there than what they have seen.  Would it be more mad of them to assume that the evidence, overwhelming evidence, is in fact true, or that the presenters of the information are part of some giant conspiracy there to deceive them?

Science has allowed us to advance in ways people living now could have never imagined when they were young.  Global commerce, international air travel, satellite radio, satellite tv, satellite phones, the space program, moon landings, Antarctic colonization, space exploration, close up studies of the sun and other planets in the solar system, even colonization of space.  Is it more rational to trust one?s senses on things that we can see be it first hand evidence, through pictures and accounts or inferred based on logic, or to assume it is all a part of some giant conspiracy aimed at tricking us?

While the whole philosophical "you don't know if you're awake or sleeping" argument is out there, I trust that my senses have gathered enough evidence to refute that.  If I had a clue where the paper I wrote on this was I'd scan it in.  My closing argument was basically: Is it possible? Yes.  It is probable? No

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

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.

As you look through a telsecope with your eyes at a ship coming towards or away from you over the horizon, your senses tell you the world is round. If you use the "I trust my senses" argument, you cannot deny that one can see visual evidence of roundness if one looks at the right things.

you know in all honesty we could be in a dream at the moment and be aliens on a world, or we could be a program that aliens play and when we go to sleep it is really them logging off?

o crap they know that i know now i will be terminated.

bye

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 13, 2009, 08:07:58 AM

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

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.

As you look through a telsecope with your eyes at a ship coming towards or away from you over the horizon, your senses tell you the world is round. If you use the "I trust my senses" argument, you cannot deny that one can see visual evidence of roundness if one looks at the right things.

That doesn't reveal that the Earth is round. In that instance, I am simply forced to admit that I cannot make any definite conclusions based on the sensorial evidence at hand. Moreover, I would not regard the use of a telescope as direct sensory information.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 13, 2009, 09:51:17 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 13, 2009, 08:07:58 AM

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

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.

As you look through a telsecope with your eyes at a ship coming towards or away from you over the horizon, your senses tell you the world is round. If you use the "I trust my senses" argument, you cannot deny that one can see visual evidence of roundness if one looks at the right things.

That doesn't reveal that the Earth is round. In that instance, I am simply forced to admit that I cannot make any definite conclusions based on the sensorial evidence at hand. Moreover, I would not regard the use of a telescope as direct sensory information.

OK, you can use your eyes and look at a really big structure as you move away from it, the principle still applies. You just don't like that I've given you an example where there is direct sensory information that there is curvature to the earth. If you can't make direct conclusions based on the evidence at hand, then likewise you cannot make the conclusion that the earth is flat. It works both ways.

Because that is the grounding assumption on which all existence is based. The point I'm trying to make is that we must trust our senses entirely, or not at all. As your example perfectly demonstrates, the latter is an unteneble position, which is what Schopenhauer meant when he said that

Knowing the limitations of your senses is very important.  Knowing how easy it is to fool your senses, I'd say that only a fool trusts them entirely.  Then again, it's equally foolish not to trust them at all.  The trick is to find the right balance of knowing when to trust your senses and when not to.

Every time a good question is initially asked, it is always turned into some debate about something irrelevant, read my very first post and try and answer it, further procrastination will just strengthen the RET.   

OK, you can use your eyes and look at a really big structure as you move away from it, the principle still applies. You just don't like that I've given you an example where there is direct sensory information that there is curvature to the earth. If you can't make direct conclusions based on the evidence at hand, then likewise you cannot make the conclusion that the earth is flat. It works both ways.

Look, let's pretend that a telescope counts as direct sensorial evidence, and I look through one at a ship going over the horizon. Even then, based on that evidence, the Earth could be any number of shapes. It in no way proves curvature. The existence of a horizon tells me nothing about what is beyond it. You see the ship go over the horizen, and assume curvature, because that's what you've been conditioned to believe. However, based on that alone, for all you know the Earth could be a dodecahedron, or even a cube.

Look, let's pretend that a telescope counts as direct sensorial evidence, and I look through one at a ship going over the horizon. Even then, based on that evidence, the Earth could be any number of shapes. It in no way proves curvature. The existence of a horizon tells me nothing about what is beyond it. You see the ship go over the horizen, and assume curvature, because that's what you've been conditioned to believe. However, based on that alone, for all you know the Earth could be a dodecahedron, or even a cube.

Not necessarily.  Knowing the distance away from the observer and how much of the object is hidden, one can use multiple observations to calculate the approximate shape of the earth.  Unfortunately, various atmospheric refractive phenomena could make this process tricky.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 13, 2009, 11:40:12 AM

OK, you can use your eyes and look at a really big structure as you move away from it, the principle still applies. You just don't like that I've given you an example where there is direct sensory information that there is curvature to the earth. If you can't make direct conclusions based on the evidence at hand, then likewise you cannot make the conclusion that the earth is flat. It works both ways.

Look, let's pretend that a telescope counts as direct sensorial evidence, and I look through one at a ship going over the horizon. Even then, based on that evidence, the Earth could be any number of shapes. It in no way proves curvature. The existence of a horizon tells me nothing about what is beyond it. You see the ship go over the horizen, and assume curvature, because that's what you've been conditioned to believe. However, based on that alone, for all you know the Earth could be a dodecahedron, or even a cube.

But the one shape you could absolutely guarantee that it's not, is flat!

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 15, 2009, 05:51:01 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 13, 2009, 11:40:12 AM

OK, you can use your eyes and look at a really big structure as you move away from it, the principle still applies. You just don't like that I've given you an example where there is direct sensory information that there is curvature to the earth. If you can't make direct conclusions based on the evidence at hand, then likewise you cannot make the conclusion that the earth is flat. It works both ways.

Look, let's pretend that a telescope counts as direct sensorial evidence, and I look through one at a ship going over the horizon. Even then, based on that evidence, the Earth could be any number of shapes. It in no way proves curvature. The existence of a horizon tells me nothing about what is beyond it. You see the ship go over the horizen, and assume curvature, because that's what you've been conditioned to believe. However, based on that alone, for all you know the Earth could be a dodecahedron, or even a cube.

But the one shape you could absolutely guarantee that it's not, is flat!

Like I said, that's assuming we treat a telescope as 'direct sensorial information', which I don't.

You don't need a telescope, just a very big structure and some distance.