Subjective, Intersubjective Objective and proof the world can't be round.

The Davidsonian theory of radical interpretation to defat the sceptic states that the meanings of words within our language such as the word "earth" derive from their intersubjective usage, and their intersubjective usage derives from their objective qualities, after all we couldn't possibly both agree to call something an X if there were no Xs  out in the world. Hence we cannot be on a massive scale decieved about the basic nature of the world only certain elents of it.

Applying this to the shape of the earth, from an intersubjective perspective we cannot possibly mean when we say "earth" that it is a spherical object because when the world was anchored in our language "earth" will have only ever meant to flat expanse beneath our feet, flatness is built into the very concept of the word earth so to try to claim that "the earth is round" is as absurd as trying to claim that "That cube is 2d".

Of course we have now built up this convaluted and admittedly useful (but still basically flawwed) theory and set of principles based on the idea that the earth is round, and talk of a round earth with reference to this theory seems to make sense, but that is only because we have failed to recognize that "earth" as used in ordinary conversation refers to the earth which we all know to be flat, and "earth" as used in coversation about GPS, satellites etc actually is a completely different word used to refer to "earth as used in theory X".

Whilst Theory X may well be useful and lead to interest predictions it is at the end of the day merely a theory and cannot possibly conform to reality and rather than continuing to debate it's validity as a correspondence with reality we would all do much better to concentrate as the FETers so expertely do on finding adaptations to the corret FET so that it can also have the same predictive power but with the added bonus of actually conforming to reality.

I think if you truly understood what you are talking about and what it means, you would spell a lot better.

I don't think I understood the whole idea, but in one paragraph I think you said something like this:
A) "We used the word 'earth' to describe the long flat plane we're standing on"
B) "Now we're calling this long flat plane a spherical thing (Approximately)"
C) "It can't be spherical because we already defined it as a long flat plane"

Does this mean that the way we build our language governs the laws of the universe? If that was the case, why didn't we define the earth as a "place where dragons roam" or a "place of unlimited prosperity" so that we could make the world more interesting? I'll propose a different definition for earth: "The very large object that we live on". I think nobody of any time period would have disagreed that this deinition is correct even if it's not very complete.

In your last paragraph you mentioned that Theory X can be useful for many things but in the end it's "only a theory" and can't possibly conform to reality. This is another appeal to language. In normal terms a theory is something like a guess. A theory in scientific terms is a way of explaining many different observations we have seen. A theory is the highest possible form of scientific knowledge and is the closest understanding we can possibly have of reality. In the scientific community a theory will only be taken down in one of these two cases:
A) Another theory appears, which can explain much more than the previous theory
B) The theory gives wrong predictions about the reality it explains.

And in the second case a theory could still be modified to solve the problem, rather than just be thrown away.

Maximohondoom it's not that the way we build our language governs the laws of the universe, it's that the way the universe is defines our language, by introspecting our language we can derive the state of the world, and by determining the necessary state of certain words such as "earth" we can determine the necessary state of reality. The word earth clearly must refer to the sum total of all the flat planes we experience because no human can possibly see this so-called round earth as a round object or even as a sum of cureved objects because from the point of human reference the theory itself states that you will still refer to something which is flat, so the theory itself is flawwed.

On the subject of theories, no theory is designed so as to correspond to reality they are just designed to have the greatest predictive power, i'm not saying that RET doesn't have good predictive power or even that it's a bad theory, i'm just saying it is a flawwed representation of the world, and people seem to keep confusing a theory with how the world actually is, the world actually is flat and it is good to see a website like this trying to adapt the superior FET to have the same predictive power as RET.

As for Mr Psudonym, if the best contribution you can make to a thread is to comment on spelling you might want to consider not making any contribution at all.

Maximohondoom it's not that the way we build our language governs the laws of the universe, it's that the way the universe is defines our language, by introspecting our language we can derive the state of the world, and by determining the necessary state of certain words such as "earth" we can determine the necessary state of reality. The word earth clearly must refer to the sum total of all the flat planes we experience because no human can possibly see this so-called round earth as a round object or even as a sum of cureved objects because from the point of human reference the theory itself states that you will still refer to something which is flat, so the theory itself is flawwed.

On the subject of theories, no theory is designed so as to correspond to reality they are just designed to have the greatest predictive power, i'm not saying that RET doesn't have good predictive power or even that it's a bad theory, i'm just saying it is a flawwed representation of the world, and people seem to keep confusing a theory with how the world actually is, the world actually is flat and it is good to see a website like this trying to adapt the superior FET to have the same predictive power as RET.

As for Mr Psudonym, if the best contribution you can make to a thread is to comment on spelling you might want to consider not making any contribution at all.

First off, I wont even bother disproving your logic because it has almost nothing to do with the actual shape of earth, and he wasnt actually insulting your spelling. He was insulting what you understood about your post AND your logic.

Last i checked,the word Earth came from a word that means ground.
I don't see how this has anything to do with the earths shape,infact your words actually don't contain any proof the earth isn't round.

What I've learned from this website:

1.  The word "earth" was supposedly originally intended to refer to a flat plane, therefore the Earth is not round.

2. Using large words makes you sound smart, but spelling most of your post wrong negates most of what you just said.

3. If you look at two raindrops, 1 + 1 = 2.  If those drops merge, 1 + 1 = 1. Therefore, the Earth is not round.

This site is awesome.

I still don't think Flying0123 has any idea what he is talking about.

This is not a proof at all.
because you start with a dubious theory with inappropriate application.
people used the word earth to mean gigantic mass were things fell to.
just because it is not immediately apparent that the earth is infact a near sphere, doesn't mean that it can't be.
furthermore your theory sounds wrong, because we have made words for plenty of things that don't exist.
Also, this theory uses the scope of human knowledge to hold everything in existence. Several tribes in the
ancient world had no word for numbers past 10, but does that mean that the numbers end at 10?

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there ancient tribes that could only count to 2?

Maximohondoom it's not that the way we build our language governs the laws of the universe, it's that the way the universe is defines our language, by introspecting our language we can derive the state of the world, and by determining the necessary state of certain words such as "earth" we can determine the necessary state of reality. The word earth clearly must refer to the sum total of all the flat planes we experience because no human can possibly see this so-called round earth as a round object or even as a sum of cureved objects because from the point of human reference the theory itself states that you will still refer to something which is flat, so the theory itself is flawwed.

On the subject of theories, no theory is designed so as to correspond to reality they are just designed to have the greatest predictive power, i'm not saying that RET doesn't have good predictive power or even that it's a bad theory, i'm just saying it is a flawwed representation of the world, and people seem to keep confusing a theory with how the world actually is, the world actually is flat and it is good to see a website like this trying to adapt the superior FET to have the same predictive power as RET.

As for Mr Psudonym, if the best contribution you can make to a thread is to comment on spelling you might want to consider not making any contribution at all.

What about the fact that words have more than one meaning, that may be conflicting?
Also you have a logical fallacies via tautology. you are saying the earth is flat because the definition of earth is based on the existance of the flat earth below us.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there ancient tribes that could only count to 2?

yeah I think I read in the book Zero, that some people only had words for one, two, and many

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there ancient tribes that could only count to 2?

I honestly find that unlikely.
Not that there weren't words but that they couldn't count.  Counting is easy, communicating what you counted is not.

I'm sure there probably were tribes that could only count to 2, but that doesn't show that it limits the states of the world because the entire of mathematics is just footnotes to the idea that 1+1 = 2, it all derives from that basic notion, so once you have that basic idea whether you realize it or not your language now contains the entire of mathematics.

Mr Pseudonym I'm sure you think your posts must have a point otherwise you wouldn't keep posting but could you show that point to the rest of us cause at the moment you just look like an idiot throwing insults from the sidelines.

Mr Pseudonym I'm sure you think your posts must have a point otherwise you wouldn't keep posting but could you show that point to the rest of us cause at the moment you just look like an idiot throwing insults from the sidelines.

Certainly.  What was the question?  I read your post and it is an incoherent babble.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there ancient tribes that could only count to 2?

I saw one on the history channel where they didn't have a word for anything past 2.Anything past 2 was called many.

The Davidsonian theory of radical interpretation to defat the sceptic states that the meanings of words within our language such as the word "earth" derive from their intersubjective usage, and their intersubjective usage derives from their objective qualities, after all we couldn't possibly both agree to call something an X if there were no Xs  out in the world. Hence we cannot be on a massive scale decieved about the basic nature of the world only certain elents of it.

Applying this to the shape of the earth, from an intersubjective perspective we cannot possibly mean when we say "earth" that it is a spherical object because when the world was anchored in our language "earth" will have only ever meant to flat expanse beneath our feet, flatness is built into the very concept of the word earth so to try to claim that "the earth is round" is as absurd as trying to claim that "That cube is 2d".

Of course we have now built up this convaluted and admittedly useful (but still basically flawwed) theory and set of principles based on the idea that the earth is round, and talk of a round earth with reference to this theory seems to make sense, but that is only because we have failed to recognize that "earth" as used in ordinary conversation refers to the earth which we all know to be flat, and "earth" as used in coversation about GPS, satellites etc actually is a completely different word used to refer to "earth as used in theory X".

Whilst Theory X may well be useful and lead to interest predictions it is at the end of the day merely a theory and cannot possibly conform to reality and rather than continuing to debate it's validity as a correspondence with reality we would all do much better to concentrate as the FETers so expertely do on finding adaptations to the corret FET so that it can also have the same predictive power but with the added bonus of actually conforming to reality.

Summary:

If it doesn't exist, we can't agree to give it a name. Seeing as we once agreed that the word "earth" means the flat planet we live on, it have to exist based on the previous statement. The only logical progress from here is explaining how it can be flat, because the 2 previous statements prove it is flat.

This means "A round earth" is an oxymoron, and "A flat earth" is redundant.

I'm sure there probably were tribes that could only count to 2, but that doesn't show that it limits the states of the world because the entire of mathematics is just footnotes to the idea that 1+1 = 2, it all derives from that basic notion, so once you have that basic idea whether you realize it or not your language now contains the entire of mathematics.

Mr Pseudonym I'm sure you think your posts must have a point otherwise you wouldn't keep posting but could you show that point to the rest of us cause at the moment you just look like an idiot throwing insults from the sidelines.

and you have now just realized that the word planet means large mass whose own gravity causes it to form a sphere

By this very flawed argument, the only place that exists is Sumeria, because the ancient Sumerians word for the world was Sumer, which meant land of the black headed people (them). Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason

By this very flawed argument, the only place that exists is Sumeria, because the ancient Sumerians word for the world was Sumer, which meant land of the black headed people (them). Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason

All you have proven there is that "Sumer" was not the Sumeria word for world but was in fact their word for Sumeria, unless of course you can proove with certainty that "Sumer" was their word for world and the only way you could do that is by being a speaker of their language. (A speaker who gained their language through radical interpretation not a translator of their language).

By this logic, the word "dick" can only mean "the name of a person" and never the male genitalia, a swear word or a persons characteristics.

However, if we agree that the word "Ørth" means "the round planet we live on", we can prove that we live on a round planet.

Catchpa we can't agree that the word "Orth" means "the round planet we live on" because there is no round planet in existence to fix the meaning of such a word, the word "Orth" would never evolve naturally as part of a language and all your doing is creating a nonsense word with a descriptive definition but no real meaning, whereas the word "earth" is so entrenched in our language that it's clear it evolved naturally and has genuine meaning which can only have been affixed by reference to a flat world as that is the only subjective (and by extension intersubjective) connection we can have with it. Given that we can only have an intersubjective connection to a flat world and interubjectivity is fixed by the subjective meeting through the objective then the earth must be objectively flat.

Earth means soil or dirt.

Dirt is made of thousands of millions of round particles.

Earth is round.

Quote

By this very flawed argument, the only place that exists is Sumeria, because the ancient Sumerians word for the world was Sumer, which meant land of the black headed people (them). Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason

All you have proven there is that "Sumer" was not the Sumeria word for world but was in fact their word for Sumeria, unless of course you can proove with certainty that "Sumer" was their word for world and the only way you could do that is by being a speaker of their language. (A speaker who gained their language through radical interpretation not a translator of their language).

It meant "the land"
lrn2history

what about the word globe?
therefore we have proven that the earth is round.

also Flying013 might want to look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earth
read the 2nd definition.

/thread

As I have stated many times before, there are words which gain their meaning naturally through intersubjective anchoring to the objective and introspection of the meaning of these sorts of words can tell us about the necessary state of the universe and then there are words which are part of theories which have meaning (If at all) Purely descriptively.

Ask me what "Earth" means and I can point to it, Ask me what "Globe" means and I have to describe it within the confines of RET.

Hey, meet my friend Bill. He is sitting right next to me.

People tell me I'm a paranoid schizophrenic and he's only a figment of my imagination. He can't be. I can name him, therefore he exist. If he exists, he must be real.

All you replies show is that you don't understand the point Captcha.

All you replies show is that you don't understand the point Captcha.

Explain.

I could explain but i'd only be repeating what I said at the start of all this so you could just read that.