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

  • 57 Replies
  • 6925 Views
*

Catchpa

  • 1018
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.

.. right?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
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.

Ask me what globe means and I'll point to it. I never at any point in my life thought the earth was flat.
and read dictionary for further proof. But more importantly, your argument is entirely ad populum, ad naturam, and ad ignorantiam.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
This thread really ought to be moved to alternative science or some other board
A quick googles search reveals Intersubjunctive to mean when two people observe on thing subjectively, and agree upon such.
And so this is simply arguing with popular opinion. which in fact is that the earth is round. therefore by his philosophy, key word as it is not a true scientific theory as OP has stated, the world is round. But the deeper problem is the scientific merit of OP's theory. when dissected, the core element of so called proof and evidence is the authority of human language. it assumes that language holds command over reality aka we say it therefore it exists. the problem with this is a) we don't necessarily say things that exist and b) many words have two meanings and c) the only way words could have such foundation in reality, is if humans, the creator of words knew fully the state of said reality. the counter example to this is the misnomer, or something given a certain name that conveys a misleading meaning.
All in all OP's argument is a tautology: the earth is flat because the word earth implies a quality of flatness.

TL; DR OP's claimed scientific theory is just some guys philosophy. The philosophy assumes that humans nativley know the state of the universe, and therefore our language should be treated as gospel.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Well this thread had fulfilled my quote for Lolz today. Saying something and the meaning of a word (a laughable concept considering the evolution of certain words through time) means that is reality, even though everything else (like actual pictures) say differently.

For instance - My laptop is always on my lap because its name says so...... oh..... wait.....
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Well this thread had fulfilled my quote for Lolz today. Saying something and the meaning of a word (a laughable concept considering the evolution of certain words through time) means that is reality, even though everything else (like actual pictures) say differently.

For instance - My laptop is always on my lap because its name says so...... oh..... wait.....
My bed must be my lap then,thus i can move using my bed.....
Unless the laptop being on my bed is an illusion?

*

Sliver

  • 557
Let me just see if I have this straight.  By your logic, since the Earth was named Earth, which at the time meant, "the flat surface we live on", that meaning can NEVER change and thus proves that the people who gave the word it's definition could not have been wrong, and thus the Earth is flat.  Is that about right?

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Well this thread had fulfilled my quote for Lolz today. Saying something and the meaning of a word (a laughable concept considering the evolution of certain words through time) means that is reality, even though everything else (like actual pictures) say differently.

For instance - My laptop is always on my lap because its name says so...... oh..... wait.....
My bed must be my lap then,thus i can move using my bed.....
Unless the laptop being on my bed is an illusion?

Excellent point March. And yes the laptop is a lie..... just like the cake.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Well this thread had fulfilled my quote for Lolz today. Saying something and the meaning of a word (a laughable concept considering the evolution of certain words through time) means that is reality, even though everything else (like actual pictures) say differently.

For instance - My laptop is always on my lap because its name says so...... oh..... wait.....
My bed must be my lap then,thus i can move using my bed.....
Unless the laptop being on my bed is an illusion?

Excellent point March. And yes the laptop is a lie..... just like the cake.

Hivemind like hell, just got on here to post that joke

You know, words do change meaning. Hell, they do so on a daily basis. There are people whose only job is to track the usage of words to determine how they're being used, and update their definitions in dictionaries. Linguistics is a very real field.

Besides, you're assuming the word was made when we knew exactly what the Earth was. The word, or to be more correct the ancient form of the word (Isn't it Gaea, or somesuch? I know that's the Greek goddess of the Earth, in any event), was made to describe what we knew, not exactly what it was. Because we didn't know exactly what it was, only the part of it we could observe. Hell, they used to think the Earth was the center of the universe, and that was proven wrong (Unless you take into consideration that we are, indeed, the center of the observable universe. But that's a different matter). They also used to think germs were evil spirits, or tainted blood that needed to be let out.

Your entire argument has no basis at all, really. Hell, you don't even use the right definition of Earth, nor do you bother to do the research to figure out what the Earth was first called, as that would be more pertinent to your point. Next time, do your research before making a thread.

Why are FET'ers so desperate? It's like you guys don't even have any self-respect, you come up with the most inane arguments imaginable. But then I guess you kind of have to be to believe the earth is flat but still... this is embarassing. There actually is only one legitimate FET position and none of you seem to be taking it!


*

Catchpa

  • 1018
No FE'ers endorse this theory anyway.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

And you speak for all FEers do you?

*

Sliver

  • 557
And you speak for all FEers do you?
I don't recall any of them posting in this thread and backing you up.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have some work to do on my laptop.  Not a computer, but rather the skin on the front of my thighs. 

I have some work to do on my laptop.  Not a computer, but rather the skin on the front of my thighs. 

Saying stuff like that only shows a profound misunderstanding of the argument, not a weakness in the argument, laptops can be subjectively observed from a number of different viewpoints, each of which feeds into the intersubjective and therefore objective meaning of the word, the earth can only ever be subjectively viewed as flat therefore there is no way the objective earth can be anything other than flat.


they are just designed to have the greatest predictive power,

 it is good to see a website like this trying to adapt the superior FET to have the same predictive power as RET.


Why would FET need adapting if its superior?
 
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

RET is a superior theory than FET because it has greater predictive power, FET is a superior estimation of truth than RET.

RET is a superior theory than FET because it has greater predictive power, FET is a superior estimation of truth than RET.

Whats the difference between the two?
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

There is no such thing as Truth. Or at least we can never be sure we have it, because that would imply knowing absolutely everything about everything.

The theory with the highest predictive power is, undoubtedly, the closest possible approximation to the truth. The Flat earth hypothesis fails to make as many predictions that comply with reality as the idea of a round earth. Also, the flath earth hypothesis makes many predictions that do not comply with reality, such as the idea that the sun never appears to set behind the horizon.

An idea that doesn't make many predictions could be Ok, but an idea that predicts wrong results is one that must be thrown away or heavily remodelled.

*

Sliver

  • 557
I have some work to do on my laptop.  Not a computer, but rather the skin on the front of my thighs. 

Saying stuff like that only shows a profound misunderstanding of the argument, not a weakness in the argument, laptops can be subjectively observed from a number of different viewpoints, each of which feeds into the intersubjective and therefore objective meaning of the word, the earth can only ever be subjectively viewed as flat therefore there is no way the objective earth can be anything other than flat.
You should also take into account that the people who came up with the word "world" didn't know about all of the land masses, and therefore the word "world" should not be used to refer to the entire planet, but rather only a relatively small section.

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
I have some work to do on my laptop.  Not a computer, but rather the skin on the front of my thighs. 

Saying stuff like that only shows a profound misunderstanding of the argument, not a weakness in the argument, laptops can be subjectively observed from a number of different viewpoints, each of which feeds into the intersubjective and therefore objective meaning of the word, the earth can only ever be subjectively viewed as flat therefore there is no way the objective earth can be anything other than flat.
I still fail to see how this proves the world isn't round.
What i see you saying is that"Since we all see a flat world,it must be flat."Which seems more like an appeal to ignorance more than anything.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5178
There is no such thing as Truth.
Is this statement of yours considered true then?

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Flying0123, you have fallen.
you are trying to fight science with philosophy, one which is not even widely accepted. comeback here with actual science, or forever sound like TimeCube guy. essentially this
"the earth can only ever be subjectively viewed as flat therefore there is no way the objective earth can be anything other than flat."

Problems with this are,
1. You are assuming, incorrectly, that everyone views the Earth as flat. If anything most people think otherwise
2. You are arguing that unanimous subjective beliefs prove that something is true.
3. You interpret that the shape of the earth is subjective, when it is not. It is a completely objective.
4. If something can only be viewed one way, it is by definition objective. i.e, isn't subjectively viewed

fail more

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16357
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Flying0123, you have fallen.
you are trying to fight science with philosophy, one which is not even widely accepted. comeback here with actual science, or forever sound like TimeCube guy. essentially this
"the earth can only ever be subjectively viewed as flat therefore there is no way the objective earth can be anything other than flat."

Problems with this are,
1. You are assuming, incorrectly, that everyone views the Earth as flat. If anything most people think otherwise
2. You are arguing that unanimous subjective beliefs prove that something is true.
3. You interpret that the shape of the earth is subjective, when it is not. It is a completely objective.
4. If something can only be viewed one way, it is by definition objective. i.e, isn't subjectively viewed

fail more

He makes some valid points, but I don't think they are ones that have a place in FET.  This is more of a discussion of the post modern.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Flying0123, you have fallen.
you are trying to fight science with philosophy, one which is not even widely accepted. comeback here with actual science, or forever sound like TimeCube guy. essentially this
"the earth can only ever be subjectively viewed as flat therefore there is no way the objective earth can be anything other than flat."

Problems with this are,
1. You are assuming, incorrectly, that everyone views the Earth as flat. If anything most people think otherwise
2. You are arguing that unanimous subjective beliefs prove that something is true.
3. You interpret that the shape of the earth is subjective, when it is not. It is a completely objective.
4. If something can only be viewed one way, it is by definition objective. i.e, isn't subjectively viewed

fail more

He makes some valid points, but I don't think they are ones that have a place in FET.  This is more of a discussion of the post modern.

while it works sort of as a philosophy, my point was he's applying it incorrectly and the philosophy has some logical flaws to it. I cannot find a single valid point in his statement, because of the aforementioned errors

?

wrylie188

"Earth" has many meanings. It can mean, most commonly, the planet Earth, but can also mean dirt, rock, organic matter, or anything pertaining to the planet Earth. As for the idea that words should remain with their same meanings for all time, it is ridiculous. Do we still hold tournaments in arenas? Do we still cheer people to death? Do we still have slaves? Do we still murder homosexuals in their beds and burn women at the stake for owning cats? no. So why should we Keep the same, useless meanings tacked to versatile words? if we did that we would fill up the human spectrum of soundmaking quite quickley, allowing only useless words that applied in mideival times.

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.

Don't forget icewall guards...

Wrylie, with all those other words our subjective relations to what defines those words shifts over time and so therefore does the intersubjective definition of the word, thorough all of the theorising and trying to change the word "earth" we have never managed to get away from the fact that all people must subjectively view the earth as flat.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
@Flying0123

As I've said before, the shape of the earth is OBJECTIVE.
Those who think otherwise are deluded or wrong within the realms of science, but this still doesn't change the objectivity of the Earths shape, No more than a person who thinks 1+1=3 in R is correct, would make the value of 1+1 not objective. lrn2intersubjectivity

I'll help you tho.
Intersubjectivity is the relationship between two or more subjective views on something.
often a convergence of meaning is implied, but the term can also refer to divergence of meaning.

Nowhere is there a logical connection between the intersubjective state of something and the objective state, especially since there still is the opportunity for a differing subjective view. Objectivity and Subjectivity are two different things and they never cross.

You have passed you daily allotment of fail