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

Quote from: trig on April 26, 2010, 10:44:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 26, 2010, 08:56:29 AM

I am quite simply at a loss.

Good news! Maybe you are now ready to understand a little bit more!

Now go and try some of that empiricism by yourself, and get some empirical evidence of FET! The scientific method is now your friend, so put him to work for you. You might even like it, now that you have fought for the scientific method for several days now!

Try this simple excercise:

• The model: you at least have two maps, so you have a starting point. You know exactly where the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are, because you can buy a telescope and tabulate the information yourself, just like Galileo, Copernicus, even Ptolomey did.
• The philosophical foundation: already done, you have talked about that for days
• The mathematical formulas: there you have the tabulated data, and if Galileo Kepler could come up with the formulas, you can.
• The experiments: just find out if the tabulated data fits your model, or find a model that does.
• The conclusion: choose the model that fits the data best.

Now that we have confirmation from you that the scientific model is philosophically sound, the results that come from it are also sound.

First of all, since you have given up constesting the philosophical nature of science, I take it you concede the point.


Secondly, I never said the scientific method is philosophically sound, just that it is philosophical. There is a huge distinction between those two statements. You seem to have some bizarre notion that I've been 'defending' the scientific method, presumably because I've been claiming that it is philosophical, and you think that as someone interested in philosophy, that amounts to a defence. Of course, this is where you again show that you simply don't understand the nature or scope of philosophy.


There are a number of competing epistmeological theories; that they are opposed doesn't change the fact that they are all philosophical in nature. My argument that science is philosophical in nature does not constitute a defence of science, it is simply a statement of fact.

That is a very interesting choice of words. Everything is philosophical in nature, just as every living thing is biochemical in nature. That does not mean that the study of any living thing is done with biochemistry or by a biochemist. The same happens with philosophy. A contribution was arguably made by philosophy to science when the scientific method was defined, but they have followed diverging paths since.

Please tell us which are the "number of competing epistemological theories" you are talking about. Scientists like myself are very interested in everything at the very border of our understanding of science, but do not know about any epistemological paths we have not followed and that can compete with what we have got: the scientific method works, we have truckloads of experiments and observations that show it works, and nobody has shown us any alternative path that might lead us to a wealth of scientific knowledge.

I have found a hole in your rain theory.

Please allow me to elaborate.
In math there is no "simpleness" or "basic" of it. Its always complex. Just broken down.

Take your raindrop theory for example. One raindrop plus another is, ultimately, one raindrop; slightly larger. You have to factor in the size or your theory has nothing to stand on. Mass. Mass is the major part of my theory.

(I'm using 1 as the mass, as its hard to determine the mass of a raindrop)

Now lets say you have one raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Now you have another raindrop, also, with the mass of 1 gram. They merge together, not equaling 1 gram, but 2 grams. It may appear to be a single raindrop but the mass of two raindrops resides within. 1g+1g=2g. When dealing with math, everything MUST match. MUST correspond. Two separate number ones must be exactly the same when doing addition. You cannot have two number ones in the same equation that differ from each others representation. In your theory the number one on the right side of the equal sign is completely different from those on the left. The conclusive raindrop[right] is larger. With the mass of 2 grams. While the previous raindrops[left] have a mass of 1 gram. Therefore the equation is unreliable because the numbers aren't of the same representation. Aside from representation, the equation still doesn't make sense having the mass of two raindrops in one doesn't automatically create a new mass of 1 gram.

Even further, your theory goes into something deeper where it contradicts itself. In math an equation can only prove true, if done backwards the numbers correspond. You suggest 1+1=1(sometimes). Which goes deeper saying that 1 divided by 2 is 1. Which can never prove true. If you have 1 raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Split it in half. Its end result will not be 2 raindrops each with a mass of 1 gram, but 2 raindrops each with a mass of 0.5 grams. But if you stick with the natural equation 1+1=2. The of course 2 divided by 2 equals 1. Meaning a raindrop with the mass of 2 raindrops inside (2 grams) spilt in half will, in fact, equal two raindrops each with the mass of 1 gram.

Point proven.

Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.

True, but most FE'ers tend to overextend analogies.  I predict one will come on here and say "That's not always true!  What about the mass defect of sub-atomic particles?  Therefore the earth is flat."  They don't seem to grasp concepts well enough to just get the point being made.

Haha, very true.
I've noticed that FE'ers presume to think if they can prove one thing wrong, no matter what it is the Eart is flat.

Like they may say "A tomato is in fact a fuit, so the Earth cannot possibly be round."

(I have no input on whether tomatoes are actually vegatables or fruits, because I really don't care. Just putting that out there, in case I get attacked for that remark)

I have found a hole in your rain theory.

Please allow me to elaborate.
In math there is no "simpleness" or "basic" of it. Its always complex. Just broken down.

Take your raindrop theory for example. One raindrop plus another is, ultimately, one raindrop; slightly larger. You have to factor in the size or your theory has nothing to stand on. Mass. Mass is the major part of my theory.

(I'm using 1 as the mass, as its hard to determine the mass of a raindrop)

Now lets say you have one raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Now you have another raindrop, also, with the mass of 1 gram. They merge together, not equaling 1 gram, but 2 grams. It may appear to be a single raindrop but the mass of two raindrops resides within. 1g+1g=2g. When dealing with math, everything MUST match. MUST correspond. Two separate number ones must be exactly the same when doing addition. You cannot have two number ones in the same equation that differ from each others representation. In your theory the number one on the right side of the equal sign is completely different from those on the left. The conclusive raindrop[right] is larger. With the mass of 2 grams. While the previous raindrops[left] have a mass of 1 gram. Therefore the equation is unreliable because the numbers aren't of the same representation. Aside from representation, the equation still doesn't make sense having the mass of two raindrops in one doesn't automatically create a new mass of 1 gram.

Even further, your theory goes into something deeper where it contradicts itself. In math an equation can only prove true, if done backwards the numbers correspond. You suggest 1+1=1(sometimes). Which goes deeper saying that 1 divided by 2 is 1. Which can never prove true. If you have 1 raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Split it in half. Its end result will not be 2 raindrops each with a mass of 1 gram, but 2 raindrops each with a mass of 0.5 grams. But if you stick with the natural equation 1+1=2. The of course 2 divided by 2 equals 1. Meaning a raindrop with the mass of 2 raindrops inside (2 grams) spilt in half will, in fact, equal two raindrops each with the mass of 1 gram.

Point proven.

Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.

Your issue is that you are only relying on basic math.

My prediction holds true.  Huzzahs are in order!

I guess I must quote myself.

Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.

Your issue is that you are only relying on basic math.

It was the original poster was only relying on basic math, not I.
You have to in turn go deeper than that. And also think about the mass AND molecular structure of the raindrops as well.

Repeating myself doesn't change this.

I guess I must quote myself.

Quote

Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.

Quote

Your issue is that you are only relying on basic math.

It was the original poster was only relying on basic math, not I.
You have to in turn go deeper than that. And also think about the mass AND molecular structure of the raindrops as well.

Repeating myself doesn't change this.

Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 

1+1=1 when 1 is an additive identity under whatever system you are using as a tool for whatever task you wish to accomplish.  This is true whether it is counting a oneness of a raindrop or creating a mathematical model to represent reality.

If I have six items, and I add six items, I have exactly twelve items.

Now if I have twelve items and I want to call that "one dozen," I can.  I can't, however, say that 6+6=1.  The definitions I'm using for what the sixes represent (items) is different than the definition for what the one represents (dozens).  We can't go around mixing definitions and we have to be clear in our terms--something you seem surprisingly poor at.

The raindrop example sucks because it doesn't properly define its terms.  When it says 1+1=1, it's using different definitions for the ones on the left (raindrops of a certain size) than it is for the one on the right (a raindrop of a size equal to the sum of the two aforementioned raindrops).  You can make anything seem to equal anything else if you don't define your terms.

Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 

Or the shape of the earth.

1+1=1 when 1 is an additive identity under whatever system you are using as a tool for whatever task you wish to accomplish.  This is true whether it is counting a oneness of a raindrop or creating a mathematical model to represent reality.

And car plus bus equals car when you define bus to be the additive identity of your personal counting system. Whatever you define becomes true to you as long as you consider your definitions true by definition. See how easy it is to make some cheap philosophical arguments that in the end mean nothing?

Definitions and axioms in mathematics are as simple to make as opening your mouth and blurting out whatever you like. The true work of a mathematician is not making definitions, it is making useful definitions and deriving theorems from them.

^^ Your statement will either be twisted around, they will throw more philosophy garbage at you or they will ignore you entirely.  Ah, the fallout of being logical and clear headed...

What you guys seem to be forgetting is that as Aristotle stated "Man is a political animal and a rational animal" and all this talk is coming from the perspective of political animals, talk of sizes of objects and of raindrops is all political talk, whereas 1+1=1 is a rational concept as prooved by the OP's example.

In ignoring this very duality of Man's nature you are failing to recognize that both sides are right in what they are saying because they are talking as different animals, but that doesn't change the fact that on a rational interpretation the OP's point has prooven beyond doubt that 1+1 can equal 1 and then with this fundamental rational aspect of science so clearly undermined you have no choice but to accept the political conclusion that the world is in fact flat.

Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 

Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:05:49 PM

1+1=1 when 1 is an additive identity under whatever system you are using as a tool for whatever task you wish to accomplish.  This is true whether it is counting a oneness of a raindrop or creating a mathematical model to represent reality.

And car plus bus equals car when you define bus to be the additive identity of your personal counting system. Whatever you define becomes true to you as long as you consider your definitions true by definition. See how easy it is to make some cheap philosophical arguments that in the end mean nothing?

Definitions and axioms in mathematics are as simple to make as opening your mouth and blurting out whatever you like. The true work of a mathematician is not making definitions, it is making useful definitions and deriving theorems from them.

I agree.  However, making useful definitions is not the aim of math.  Math is made for itself and to be self contained.  Its just lucky for engineers that it happens to coincide with reality.

Quote

Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops.  

Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Math is an abstract set of concepts and definitions that has no necessary bearing on reality.

Quote from: lossforwords21 on April 30, 2010, 09:13:12 AM

Quote

Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops.  

Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Math is an abstract set of concepts and definitions that has no necessary bearing on reality.

I never mentioned reality. Reality isn't a term I was referring to in the least. I was strictly speaking about substances. Objects, places, thoughts, ideas. All these are governable, reality isn't. Reality is something we can not describe. Its just a sense of realness, rather than illusion. Mathematics may not be "necessary" but its there. No matter how you look at it, its still there. You FE'ers patronize yourselves. Geez.
[/quote]

Quote from: trig on April 30, 2010, 08:09:20 AM

...is making useful definitions and deriving theorems from them.

I agree.  However, making useful definitions is not the aim of math.

"I agree, but you're still wrong."   

That is a very interesting choice of words. Everything is philosophical in nature, just as every living thing is biochemical in nature. That does not mean that the study of any living thing is done with biochemistry or by a biochemist. The same happens with philosophy. A contribution was arguably made by philosophy to science when the scientific method was defined, but they have followed diverging paths since.

No, they haven't. You just don't know anything about philosophy, or its relationship with science, as is now abundently clear. Why don't you try contesting the points I've already made, instead of repeating the same bald assertions.

Please tell us which are the "number of competing epistemological theories" you are talking about. Scientists like myself are very interested in everything at the very border of our understanding of science, but do not know about any epistemological paths we have not followed and that can compete with what we have got: the scientific method works, we have truckloads of experiments and observations that show it works, and nobody has shown us any alternative path that might lead us to a wealth of scientific knowledge.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You want me to point you to a non-scientific epistemological method which can "lead [you] to a wealth of scientific knowledge". That demand is a total absurdity.


If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.

Some definitions in everyday life has evolved beyond mathematics, and the OP's failure to realize so doomed this thread from the very beginning.

The "one raindrop + one raindrop" example does not even equal one raindrop all the time. When do they merge together and become a pool? a river? an ocean?
If the raindrops were big enough to create a pool, then the equation broken down to basic mathematics would become something like.. it can't even be expressed in math! Unless you're going to say that 1+1 can magically transform into something completely different.

This topic has derailed into a bunch of philosophy talk, though you can't really blame anyone. The OP spoke more about philosophy, than of any disproof towards either shape of the earth, even when he mistakenly said that he would.

This should be moved to the forum Philosophy, Religion & Society or even merged with: "Is this my boat?" http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36863.0

Quote

Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 

Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Typical of a globularist when all else fails to rely on Platonism. It is nothing short of a religion.

But, it is about the earth bring flat.  It is about the model we have used to calculate a round earth, so it does belong in this place.

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.

You got it, finally! I do not want this discussion to continue. You are at the end of the rope, trying one of the last cheap rhetoric tricks in your bag, and I do not care for the rest of the cheap rhetoric tricks you may try.

The trick is simple: when you run out of useful things to say you come up with "you are too idiotic to see it and I am too intelligent to show it; you google it because I am tired". I might bite and continue the discussion with a lot of sobbing and a page of "I am not stupid" remarks, and you are off the hook.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 30, 2010, 03:50:09 PM

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.

You got it, finally! I do not want this discussion to continue. You are at the end of the rope, trying one of the last cheap rhetoric tricks in your bag, and I do not care for the rest of the cheap rhetoric tricks you may try.

The trick is simple: when you run out of useful things to say you come up with "you are too idiotic to see it and I am too intelligent to show it; you google it because I am tired". I might bite and continue the discussion with a lot of sobbing and a page of "I am not stupid" remarks, and you are off the hook.

Listen you have repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I am talking about during this discussion, but what's now apparent is that you in fact have little to no knowledge of philosophy or the philosophy of science. To ask for a non-scientifc empistemological model that can provide scientific knowledge is a ridiculous question. To assert that science is empirical in nature, yet not philosophical, is an absurd position. These are fundamental misconceptions about the terms involved, and I don't see why I should have to prove to you that empiricism is an epistemological theory when a simple google/wiki would clear it up for you.


I think it's highly ironic that you are (once again) accusing me of using rhetorical tricks, when you have spent the last couple of pages ignoring my arguments, and instead trying to side-step the issue by raising tangential points of little to no relevance. If you can show that science is not empirical, or that empiricism not a theory of knowledge, or that epistemology is not a field of philosophy, then go ahead. But I think you now realise that you've already lost this argument, which is why you've spent the last page ducking it. That science is philosophical in nature is almost self-evident, and your reluctance to acknowledge this is frankly bizarre.

Quote from: trig on May 02, 2010, 02:27:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 30, 2010, 03:50:09 PM

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.

You got it, finally! I do not want this discussion to continue. You are at the end of the rope, trying one of the last cheap rhetoric tricks in your bag, and I do not care for the rest of the cheap rhetoric tricks you may try.

The trick is simple: when you run out of useful things to say you come up with "you are too idiotic to see it and I am too intelligent to show it; you google it because I am tired". I might bite and continue the discussion with a lot of sobbing and a page of "I am not stupid" remarks, and you are off the hook.

Listen you have repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I am talking about during this discussion, but what's now apparent is that you in fact have little to no knowledge of philosophy or the philosophy of science. To ask for a non-scientifc empistemological model that can provide scientific knowledge is a ridiculous question. To assert that science is empirical in nature, yet not philosophical, is an absurd position. These are fundamental misconceptions about the terms involved, and I don't see why I should have to prove to you that empiricism is an epistemological theory when a simple google/wiki would clear it up for you.


I think it's highly ironic that you are (once again) accusing me of using rhetorical tricks, when you have spent the last couple of pages ignoring my arguments, and instead trying to side-step the issue by raising tangential points of little to no relevance. If you can show that science is not empirical, or that empiricism not a theory of knowledge, or that epistemology is not a field of philosophy, then go ahead. But I think you now realise that you've already lost this argument, which is why you've spent the last page ducking it. That science is philosophical in nature is almost self-evident, and your reluctance to acknowledge this is frankly bizarre.

Just give us some idea of how science is better off with the 100 or 150 years of philosophical studies since the scientific method was first drafted.

The point is simple: the scientists like me accept that science has a specific place in the realm of human knowledge, and that there is not much we can or want to contribute to the ultimate questions of philosophy. We dedicate ourselves to the problems that are amenable to the scientific method and, in some cases, to the theoretical problems that arise from mathematical formulations of models that do not, do do not yet show in experiments and observations. Philosophers, on the other hand, accept that the realm of science has few interesting philosophical implications and dedicate themselves to other targets.

You can still play with words all you like, or show us a research in which an interdisciplinary group of scientists and philosophers work together.

The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.

The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.

Wow, finally, a straight answer! I have a response for that, but will let your answer there for others to see easily!

Wow, wow, wow! Never thought this would happen!

Quote from: John Davis on May 02, 2010, 12:23:36 PM

The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.

Wow, finally, a straight answer! I have a response for that, but will let your answer there for others to see easily!

Wow, wow, wow! Never thought this would happen!

I believe I offered one or two other examples previously that were ignored by you.

Quote from: trig on May 02, 2010, 01:13:29 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 02, 2010, 12:23:36 PM

The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.

Wow, finally, a straight answer! I have a response for that, but will let your answer there for others to see easily!

Wow, wow, wow! Never thought this would happen!

I believe I offered one or two other examples previously that were ignored by you.

Which examples?

And I thought I had the ball rolling...

Well, since it stopped, it is time to conclude. I must have my head in the sand, since I do not see much philosophy being used in science, apart from the scientific method, which took its current basic form in the end of the nineteenth century. But John Davis must also have his head in the sand, since he cannot come up with much either.

Philosophy studies the sciences, mathematics and other disciplines and uses them in its endeavour to understand knowledge (epistemology), reality (ontology) and especially the human (social philosophy, political philosophy), but the natural sciences do not interact much with philosophy, and the human sciences do so only in a very limited manner.

In the times of the encyclopedists like Diderot all the branches of knowledge were almost merged, and the study of ontology was not clearly distinguishable from the study of chemistry, for example. But those times are over. In the natural sciences the phrase from Feynman, which says something like "philosophy is about as useful to science as ornithology is to birds" says pretty much the whole story. In human sciences there are some places where philosophy gives inspiration in the search for models (which are scarce and not very powerful, yet in some human sciences) but not much more.

Philosophy is important for its own merits, not for what James or John Davis think.