A major flaw in the zetetic model

...you FEers still don't get it?

If the Earth is round, the zetetic method will come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, because from our perspective the Earth would still look flat.  If the Earth is flat, the zetetic method will come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.  The zetetic method's conclusion is a constant, and thus is useless in differentiating between two possibilities.

Quite frankly, our 5 senses are not perfect.  The zetetic model seems to think that they are, despite the fact that our senses make mistakes, and should not always be believed.

...you FEers still don't get it?

If the Earth is round, the zetetic method will come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, because from our perspective the Earth would still look flat.

No, it's even more ludicrous than that. It DOESN'T LOOK FLAT. And they still claim it does.

What would you expect to see if you were standing on a big sphere, guys? 

What would you expect to see if you were standing on a big sphere, guys? 

I would expect to see people slipping and falling off when I walked far enough in one direction.

I wonder how all of the gases and minerals on other planets in the solar system manage to stay stuck to the planet

I wonder how all of the gases and minerals on other planets in the solar system manage to stay stuck to the planet

Gravity

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 27, 2010, 10:39:36 AM

What would you expect to see if you were standing on a big sphere, guys? 

I would expect to see people slipping and falling off when I walked far enough in one direction.

And can you tell me why you'd expect to see that?

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 28, 2010, 08:25:08 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 27, 2010, 10:39:36 AM

What would you expect to see if you were standing on a big sphere, guys? 

I would expect to see people slipping and falling off when I walked far enough in one direction.

And can you tell me why you'd expect to see that?

Because this expectancy fits reality. The expectancy that reality is consistent has another name: 'common sense'. Which you may have heard of. Sadly the term 'common sense' has been a misnomer ever since Round Earth Theory declared war upon it.

How can you possibly argue common sense when you're advocating a theory that claims, among all the bodies in the Universe we can see, our planet is the only one that isn't a planet. That gravity doesn't exist, that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and the moon is bio-luminescent.

Your troll is showing.

Because this expectancy fits reality. The expectancy that reality is consistent has another name: 'common sense'. Which you may have heard of. Sadly the term 'common sense' has been a misnomer ever since Round Earth Theory declared war upon it.

Expectations and "common sense" are the main sources of bias in what should be unbiased observations. 

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 30, 2010, 11:14:33 AM

Because this expectancy fits reality. The expectancy that reality is consistent has another name: 'common sense'. Which you may have heard of. Sadly the term 'common sense' has been a misnomer ever since Round Earth Theory declared war upon it.

Expectations and "common sense" are the main sources of bias in what should be unbiased observations. 

So you admit RET contradicts common sense?

you're advocating a theory that claims, among all the bodies in the Universe we can see, our planet is the only one that isn't a planet.

I would never advocate such a wild assumption.

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2010, 12:58:53 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 30, 2010, 11:14:33 AM

Because this expectancy fits reality. The expectancy that reality is consistent has another name: 'common sense'. Which you may have heard of. Sadly the term 'common sense' has been a misnomer ever since Round Earth Theory declared war upon it.

Expectations and "common sense" are the main sources of bias in what should be unbiased observations. 

So you admit RET contradicts common sense?

I admit that a lot of things are counter-intuitive, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Because a flat disc zooming upwards and constantly accelerating uses so much common sense.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 28, 2010, 02:29:00 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 28, 2010, 08:25:08 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 27, 2010, 10:39:36 AM

What would you expect to see if you were standing on a big sphere, guys? 

I would expect to see people slipping and falling off when I walked far enough in one direction.

And can you tell me why you'd expect to see that?

Because this expectancy fits reality. The expectancy that reality is consistent has another name: 'common sense'. Which you may have heard of. Sadly the term 'common sense' has been a misnomer ever since Round Earth Theory declared war upon it.

So you have an expectation based on your beliefs about the physical properties, but can you tell me what the big sphere looks like please? Don't look at the people sliding off under the power of some unexplained force, look at the sphere and describe what you see.

Markjo, you are much too balanced and open-minded to be an RE-er. I suspect you secretly know the Earth is flat, but you like to defend RET for trolling purposes.

Thermal Detonator, all this deja vu is giving me a headache. At least Markjo is a subtle troll capable of intelligent discussion. You're just a stuck record.

It doesn't take a balanced and open mind to accept FET. I could imagine a lot of people accepting the idea if it went massively public. Accepting such a theory that has no backing whatsoever is more akin to being an ignorant person; not knowing why the Earth is round to begin with.

Markjo, you are much too balanced and open-minded to be an RE-er. I suspect you secretly know the Earth is flat, but you like to defend RET for trolling purposes.

I support whichever model has the better evidence.

Markjo, you are much too balanced and open-minded to be an RE-er. I suspect you secretly know the Earth is flat, but you like to defend RET for trolling purposes.

Ad hominems are always a nice touch to a debate.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 31, 2010, 06:53:02 AM

Markjo, you are much too balanced and open-minded to be an RE-er. I suspect you secretly know the Earth is flat, but you like to defend RET for trolling purposes.

Ad hominems are always a nice touch to a debate.

Quite the contrary. If I were Markjo I would take it as a compliment.

Quote from: Supertails on December 31, 2010, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 31, 2010, 06:53:02 AM

Markjo, you are much too balanced and open-minded to be an RE-er. I suspect you secretly know the Earth is flat, but you like to defend RET for trolling purposes.

Ad hominems are always a nice touch to a debate.

Quite the contrary. If I were Markjo I would take it as a compliment.

And I were MarkJO, I'd take it with a grain of salt.  Oh, wait...

Careful you don't spoil that sweet taste of earnest sincerity.