There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)

  • 204 Replies
  • 25950 Views
*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2010, 03:09:06 PM »
This is all about semantics. The meaning of 1+1=2 is the same here and at alpha centauri. "Raindrop" only means something here, inside the human mind. Maths are just perfect. Semantics and language not. We can trust 100% maths as long as we keep it far from philosophy, semantics and subjectiveness. This is pointless. The OP is just a misunderstanding of maths. Don't mix it with semantics. The concept of "raindrop" has nothing to see with maths.

(sorry about my english)
As I pointed out, Math is a subset of philosophy.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2010, 03:39:46 PM »
Except that math can be proven, whereas most of "philosophy" cannot, and requires a tremendous amount of faith.

As for the raindrop twits, if you have one raindrop of 1uL merge with another raindrop of 1uL guess what....you have a single drop with a volume of 2 uL, not an "overflow of oneness" or whatever silly term you want to call it.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2010, 03:42:14 PM by EireEngineer »
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2010, 03:50:20 PM »
Except that math can be proven, whereas most of "philosophy" cannot, and requires a tremendous amount of faith.
Math is self-contained though.  One could say math is 100% faith as it does not necessarily (only coincidently) have any relation to reality.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2010, 03:55:42 PM »
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38422
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2010, 04:08:15 PM »
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2010, 04:15:51 PM »
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38422
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2010, 04:51:45 PM »
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
That no one has yet shown how math precludes the earth from being round (the initial premise of this thread).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2010, 06:40:01 PM »
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
That no one has yet shown how math precludes the earth from being round (the initial premise of this thread).
Boolean algebra has two values.  You can use the same methods for them.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38422
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2010, 07:11:41 PM »
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
That no one has yet shown how math precludes the earth from being round (the initial premise of this thread).
Boolean algebra has two values.  You can use the same methods for them.
And that has exactly what to do with the shape of the earth?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2010, 07:28:58 PM »
I guess no one has bothered to point out that the raindrops come together because of cohesive forces?  Apples do not have cohesive force.  Just an observation.

I guess you are right though.  The fact that two different moments in time could have two raindrops or one raindrop means the Earth is flat.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2010, 07:38:19 PM »
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path. 
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2010, 07:42:55 PM »
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  

You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.  Therefore, I again say:

The Earth must be flat because at one point in time there were two drops and then at another point in time there was one.

Hur dur dur.

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #42 on: April 22, 2010, 07:46:34 PM »
The grand citadel of the mind, is thrust down below the pain of debate.  For is it not the way of the mind to require sleep.  We live to be but seventy-five, but live less twenty-five.  Where has the though but to vanish in ones dreams. To what use does it use. To what force drains the bastion of the thought.

Oh, great. Thread derailed.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #43 on: April 22, 2010, 10:52:19 PM »


You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.  Therefore, I again say:

The Earth must be flat because at one point in time there were two drops and then at another point in time there was one.

Hur dur dur.

 It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #44 on: April 22, 2010, 11:05:25 PM »
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.
And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

You can say science is an offshoot of philosophy, just as chemistry is an offshoot of alchemy. Having a common origin does not mean anything. The target of philosophy and the target of science are clear and almost distinct, with just a very small intersection.

Empiricism, realism, instrumentalism, epistlemology, how we should interpret data and analyze it, Ockham's razor, reductionism, induction, the methodology, assumptions and implications of science is all philosophy and is what constitutes science as what it is.  At every single point there is a philosophical choice that has been made already.  Be careful to realize them and not take them for granted.  Ignoring that they do both have the same "targets" or aims.  There is a paradigm behind and driving science, and this paradigm is philosophical.

As you say their interests intersect.  This is because it is science is a subset of Philosophy.    Squares are rectangles because they share traits with rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.  All science is philosopy, but not all philosophy is science.

Math is a formal science.  Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?

There are several hundred (if not thousand) books on this.  

Heidegger is a good starting point.  Read a few of his books.  A memorable quote off the top of my head is "science is philosophy, whether it knows and wills it- or not."  

A source I could dig up online with minimal effort: Fuller, "Insight into value"  - "Ever science is a philosophy, resting on basic presppositions."

Another: "Science is philosophy applied to a particular problem ; philosophy is science
made universal and complete" Methods of knowledge: an essay in epistemology? , Walter Smith

So no.  You don't have to take my word for it.  If one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

Philosophers have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines, and try to find the philosophical relevance of science. But most scientists haven't even heard about realism, instrumentalism, epistemology, oneness, immanence, and have only a cursory knowledge that empiricism has to do with the Scientific Method. And guess what? Science has not slowed down because of it.

Lots of knowledge started being theological, then became philosophical and finally ended up being studied by science, just as some knowledge started being alchemy and ended being studied by chemistry. That does not mean that all of science is a part of philosophy, as you try to claim.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2010, 02:18:04 AM »
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.
And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

You can say science is an offshoot of philosophy, just as chemistry is an offshoot of alchemy. Having a common origin does not mean anything. The target of philosophy and the target of science are clear and almost distinct, with just a very small intersection.

Empiricism, realism, instrumentalism, epistlemology, how we should interpret data and analyze it, Ockham's razor, reductionism, induction, the methodology, assumptions and implications of science is all philosophy and is what constitutes science as what it is.  At every single point there is a philosophical choice that has been made already.  Be careful to realize them and not take them for granted.  Ignoring that they do both have the same "targets" or aims.  There is a paradigm behind and driving science, and this paradigm is philosophical.

As you say their interests intersect.  This is because it is science is a subset of Philosophy.    Squares are rectangles because they share traits with rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.  All science is philosopy, but not all philosophy is science.

Math is a formal science.  Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?

There are several hundred (if not thousand) books on this.  

Heidegger is a good starting point.  Read a few of his books.  A memorable quote off the top of my head is "science is philosophy, whether it knows and wills it- or not."  

A source I could dig up online with minimal effort: Fuller, "Insight into value"  - "Ever science is a philosophy, resting on basic presppositions."

Another: "Science is philosophy applied to a particular problem ; philosophy is science
made universal and complete" Methods of knowledge: an essay in epistemology? , Walter Smith

So no.  You don't have to take my word for it.  If one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

Philosophers have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines, and try to find the philosophical relevance of science. But most scientists haven't even heard about realism, instrumentalism, epistemology, oneness, immanence, and have only a cursory knowledge that empiricism has to do with the Scientific Method. And guess what? Science has not slowed down because of it.

Lots of knowledge started being theological, then became philosophical and finally ended up being studied by science, just as some knowledge started being alchemy and ended being studied by chemistry. That does not mean that all of science is a part of philosophy, as you try to claim.
Feynman says nothing in that quote of the validity of the philosophy of science.  He talks of its use to scientists.  And you couldn't get a more self admitted biased source against philosophy.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein

"When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." Einstein

And then, of course theres Newton too. And Bohr.  And any number of other scientists that have made far greater contributions than Feynman.  Perhaps you meant "Scientists have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines."  Also, are we to take you at your word that "Science has not slowed down because of it", a seemingly unsupported idea that came to you at a whim?

What most scientists have heard about is irrelevant.   Whether they know about what makes up their philosophical belief system or not has no relevance on whether they are using said belief system.  The usefulness of the study of this belief system is also completely irrelevant. So, Ok, Most scientists are ignorant; fine.  The study of the belief system they hold is perhaps less useful to them.   However, before every experiment, hypothesis, during said experiment, and after scientists make philosophical decisions (whether ignorant of them or not.)  A scientist cannot practice science without philosophy at every single turn.  Like I said, if one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.  I imagine the majority of scientists, if I take you at your word, are in the first two categories.


Also, its not a matter of the roots of science, its a matter of what the aims of science are and what science is at the heart.  These aims fall under philosophy.

Let me ask you, at what point (since you claim it came from philosophy) did science stop being a subset of philosophy, and why?  

Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?


« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 02:26:50 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2010, 02:39:50 AM »
This thread is great. If two raindrops touch each other, they will become one raindrop. Therefore, the Earth is flat. There's no problem with maths here, only with logic.

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2010, 04:32:32 AM »
 It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  

That's what you'll get in response.  However, I still see the title of the thread indicating that there is no way for a round Earth.  This is followed by an explanation of 2 drops vs. 1 drop.

Therefore, raindrops and math at two different points in time yield a flat Earth (since this is a flat Earth site).

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2010, 06:31:32 AM »
Anyone who practises science without an understanding of its epistemological stance inhabits a terrible irony, whereby they seek knowledge by questioning everything except how or why they are seeking it. Such a mindset is typical of modern scientists, who place a totally unjustified faith in the notion of progress, assuming that science is a linear progression, and that technological advancement and human advancement are essentially indistinguishable.


Science is inherently philosophical, being no more than a particularly successful form of epistemology. The fact that most scientists are unaware of this is not a proof against that statement, but rather a criticism of modern science. A cursory glance over the 19th and 20th centuries is enough to prove that the notion of 'scientfic advancement' is utterly bankrupt and totally without meaning. Science needs to return to its philosophical routes, because if the purpose of science is to serve humanity, then the last hundred years or so clearly demonstrate that not all that has been dubbed 'science' has served that purpose.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #49 on: April 23, 2010, 06:32:43 AM »
Feynman says nothing in that quote of the validity of the philosophy of science.  He talks of its use to scientists.  And you couldn't get a more self admitted biased source against philosophy.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein

"When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." Einstein

And then, of course theres Newton too. And Bohr.  And any number of other scientists that have made far greater contributions than Feynman.  Perhaps you meant "Scientists have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines."  Also, are we to take you at your word that "Science has not slowed down because of it", a seemingly unsupported idea that came to you at a whim?

What most scientists have heard about is irrelevant.   Whether they know about what makes up their philosophical belief system or not has no relevance on whether they are using said belief system.  The usefulness of the study of this belief system is also completely irrelevant. So, Ok, Most scientists are ignorant; fine.  The study of the belief system they hold is perhaps less useful to them.   However, before every experiment, hypothesis, during said experiment, and after scientists make philosophical decisions (whether ignorant of them or not.)  A scientist cannot practice science without philosophy at every single turn.  Like I said, if one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.  I imagine the majority of scientists, if I take you at your word, are in the first two categories.


Also, its not a matter of the roots of science, its a matter of what the aims of science are and what science is at the heart.  These aims fall under philosophy.

Let me ask you, at what point (since you claim it came from philosophy) did science stop being a subset of philosophy, and why?  

Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?
Just show me even one recent and important scientific discovery where a philosophical argument other than the Scientific Method was instrumental.

Until sometime around the 19th century some philosophical and/or religious precepts were intermixed with science, so results that favored a philosophical or religious view were preferred.

I also would like to know about any universities that have a required course on philosophy or philosophy of science on any science, maths or engineering curriculum. I suspect they are not many.

So, your question has a simple answer: the relationship between science and philosophy pretty much ended when the Scientific Model was defined and philosophy has not given any more practical answers to science. When a scientist is looking for an answer he is not thinking epistemology, oneness or immanence, he is thinking on models, experiments, observations and theories.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #50 on: April 23, 2010, 06:54:25 AM »
I also would like to know about any universities that have a required course on philosophy or philosophy of science on any science, maths or engineering curriculum. I suspect they are not many.


Science is inherently philosophical, being no more than a particularly successful form of epistemology. The fact that most scientists are unaware of this is not a proof against that statement, but rather a criticism of modern science.


So, your question has a simple answer: the relationship between science and philosophy pretty much ended when the Scientific Model was defined and philosophy has not given any more practical answers to science. When a scientist is looking for an answer he is not thinking epistemology, oneness or immanence, he is thinking on models, experiments, observations and theories.


And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38422
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2010, 08:00:54 AM »
At the risk of membrating, isn't it amazing how even the mods refuse to stay on topic?  I've asked several times already why math precludes the earth from being round (the premise of the OP), yet all I see from them is an irrelevant philosophical debate.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #52 on: April 23, 2010, 08:39:31 AM »
At the risk of membrating, isn't it amazing how even the mods refuse to stay on topic?  I've asked several times already why math precludes the earth from being round (the premise of the OP), yet all I see from them is an irrelevant philosophical debate.

Agreed. Philosophy is all they can argue because they've never taken a scientific approach to proving that the Earth is flat.  They just think of ideas and add them to the wiki without ever testing their theories.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2010, 11:05:17 AM »
I agree also. The very idea of extending "one raindrop plus one raindrop equals one raindrop" into an argument about the shape of the Earth is so futile that there is really no argument at all, for anything.

We can only say that the person that says "1+1=2" and does not understand the context in which he says it is just defiantly ignorant.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #54 on: April 23, 2010, 11:48:47 AM »
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.

?

004forever

Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #55 on: April 23, 2010, 12:48:58 PM »
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 


You completely fail. 

First of all, even if you prove that the entirety of mathematics is false, that still has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.  The shape of the Earth is constant regardless of mathematics. 

Second, and most importantly, your observation about math is false mostly in your observation and perception.  1+1 = 2, always.  This is never not true.  Your example incorrectly interprets a real world phenomenon. Yes, adding two rain drops together will make one rain drop.  One double sized rain drop.  In this case drop+drop=2drop.  consider it from a molecular level.  Say there are 100 molecules in the two drops involved.  Adding them together makes a rain drop with 200 molecules.  1+1=2 remain true.  Even if you don't believe mathematics is always true, how do you explain that buildings fucking stand up? 

Your post is an addresses Godel's Incompleteness theorem.  The idea that nothing can be completely proven with absolute certainty.  While it's an important thing to keep in mind, it doesn't completely invalidate science.  Not by a long shot.  While nothing can be proven 100% true, we can prove things that are in all likelihood true.  For example, I cannot completely prove that you exist.  Sure, I'm responding to something you've said, and I can probably talk to your friends and family and they will tell me they exist.  But, there is still the remote possiblity that we are all hallucinating or there has been some grand conspiracy to cover up your lack of existence.  While these a certainly possible, it's very unlikely that these situations are true.  Therefore, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that you exist. 

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2010, 02:55:46 PM »

Quote
Second, and most importantly, your observation about math is false mostly in your observation and perception.  1+1 = 2, always.  This is never not true.  Your example incorrectly interprets a real world phenomenon. Yes, adding two rain drops together will make one rain drop.  One double sized rain drop.  In this case drop+drop=2drop.  consider it from a molecular level.  Say there are 100 molecules in the two drops involved.  Adding them together makes a rain drop with 200 molecules.  1+1=2 remain true.  Even if you don't believe mathematics is always true, how do you explain that buildings fucking stand up?  
No, there are any number of systems in which 1+1 != 2.  For example, when adding 1 is an identity.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38422
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2010, 03:09:17 PM »

Quote
Second, and most importantly, your observation about math is false mostly in your observation and perception.  1+1 = 2, always.  This is never not true.  Your example incorrectly interprets a real world phenomenon. Yes, adding two rain drops together will make one rain drop.  One double sized rain drop.  In this case drop+drop=2drop.  consider it from a molecular level.  Say there are 100 molecules in the two drops involved.  Adding them together makes a rain drop with 200 molecules.  1+1=2 remain true.  Even if you don't believe mathematics is always true, how do you explain that buildings fucking stand up? 
No, there are any number of systems in which 1+1 != 2.  For example, when adding 1 is an identity.
Or in binary math.  Unfortunately none of this has anything at all with the shape of the earth.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2010, 03:45:39 PM »
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  
The search for knowledge, especially outside or beyond of what is taught, is the first step to seeing the truth of the Earth - or really anything.  I myself first came to be a flatty through a mystical experience, something that at first I was very at odds with.

The topic of the post isn't always the subject.

If we question what is taught, then this leads to greater understanding of the faults that lead to issues in so called "Science."  Thats what I took most out of his post.

Obviously there is no proof in it of a flat or round earth, but it starts us on a path.   We must question the foundations of Science.  Sure, so far its a useful tool, but that could be happenstance, and there is nothing to suggest there is no greater tool that would arise form counter-intuitive methodologies or beliefs.

Thats what I take from the OP, though obviously he takes it further, supposedly with reasons we are yet to know.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 03:47:13 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2010, 03:49:48 PM »
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.
I disagree, but obviously we won't reach anything from continuing this.  You seem to admit that science is philosophy, but have some irrational hatred towards it being called philosophy.

If you'd like an example of a modern day advance in science due to philosophy beyond the scientific method look into the first hand account of the origin of the double helix.
Quantum Ab Hoc