FET falsifiability

  • 21 Replies
  • 3224 Views
FET falsifiability
« on: June 01, 2011, 12:07:00 PM »
So, what type of evidence would it take to convince a FE proponent that he or she was incorrect? Is there any?

?

crackpipe larry

  • 178
  • I poopded.. <%!
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2011, 12:15:17 PM »
So, what type of evidence would it take to convince a FE proponent that he or she was incorrect?

What do you got?   I would also accept cash..
Why are Pandas so rare??   cuz, Panda tastes good.. <is>

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2011, 12:17:06 PM »
It's a theoretical question. The implication is not that there is a mountain of irrefutable evidence. I am wondering whether there is a built-in means for falsification.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2011, 12:38:20 PM »
So, what type of evidence would it take to convince a FE proponent that he or she was incorrect? Is there any?
If I were to to go into space personally or see a sinking ship (on the horizon, not literally) that could not be restored telescopically I would be fairly convinced of the earth's roundity. As it is, I am open to both theorems.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2011, 01:25:57 PM »
Ditto here.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 03:04:46 PM »
So, what type of evidence would it take to convince a FE proponent that he or she was incorrect? Is there any?

Cant be done. There are many posts with evidence that definitively disprove many aspects of flat earth nonsense on this forum, and when they turn up they are just plain ignored by the flattists. Examples include the disproof of their beloved bent light theory (flattist response: pretend nobody posted a disproof), the results of the Super Kamiokande neutrino experiments (flattist response: ignored and not commented on) the question of the actual location of the point we call the south pole on their disc (flattist response: ignored) and many others. These ignored threads quickly spiral down where people cant see them, until someone else chips in with the same idea.

The reason you cant convince them they are incorrect is because they all already know they are incorrect. This site is not about belief in a flat earth, none of them really believe it, its about honing debate and trolling skills to find an unbreakable argument. And when these unbreakable arguments appear, they are ignored or denied (a flattist will now post saying there have been no unbreakable RE arguments posted, which just proves my point, as anyone is able to go looking through the threads about the topics I mentioned.)
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 08:32:06 PM »
But if you are a RE believer and here (look at the masthead)  doesn't that make you a troll?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2011, 03:58:32 AM »
Please be sure to disregard Skeleton. He rarely makes much sense.
As for me, it would require proof of gravity and a self-consistent sun path.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2011, 06:20:33 AM »
So, what type of evidence would it take to convince a FE proponent that he or she was incorrect? Is there any?
If I were to to go into space personally or see a sinking ship (on the horizon, not literally) that could not be restored telescopically I would be fairly convinced of the earth's roundity. As it is, I am open to both theorems.

can you explain the telescopic restoration process? What does that mean, precisely?

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2011, 06:48:34 AM »
In many FE texts it is said that a ship that "goes over the horizon" can be brought back up.

What that means is that the FE'rs contend that the ship is not going over the horizon, but merely blending in with it.  It's a trick of perspective, like converging railway tracks.  If the ship that has gone "over" is viewed with a telescope, it will be visible again, proving that it has not gone over any curve but simply blended into the horizon with distance.

This makes sense as the human eye can resolve about 1 arc minute (1/60th degree) in full daylight.  Anything smaller will blend together.  And hazy conditions will make it worse.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 06:57:23 AM by A.R. Wallace »

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2011, 07:18:05 AM »
unfotunately point is that first thing to "blend with the horizon" is the hull of the ship then the mast... Which tells us thet there is a curvature over which the hull then mast is being hidden.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2011, 07:23:55 AM »
No.  That's an old one.  The hull is closest to the horizon, therefore it will blend in first. Simple.

How many tall sailing ships have you personally watched going over the horizon?  ;)

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2011, 07:27:04 AM »
No.  That's an old one.  The hull is closest to the horizon, therefore it will blend in first. Simple.

How many tall sailing ships have you personally watched going over the horizon?  ;)

Wouldn't a ship's masts blend in first since they are significantly smaller than the hull?

Berny
Cargo ships have masts
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2011, 07:49:36 AM »
The masts might, the sails would not.

There are some pretty tall modern ships, like cruise ships.  They would make excellent subjects.  Both Hoppy and I will be in Fort Lauderdale next month, maybe we can watch the cruise ships leave Port Everglades.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2011, 08:04:47 AM »
what about launching a small rocket with a camera?

http://www.projectaether.org/products.html

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2011, 09:06:49 AM »
The masts might, the sails would not.

There are some pretty tall modern ships, like cruise ships.  They would make excellent subjects.  Both Hoppy and I will be in Fort Lauderdale next month, maybe we can watch the cruise ships leave Port Everglades.

White or off-white sails up against the haze of the horizon?  I would think the masts would be much more distinct.  If in Florida area rent a boat and use the large oil rigs.  You can probably find their exact size in public archives and use GPS to find your exact distance from them.
They are also larger than most ships.

Berny
One eye down
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2011, 11:21:21 AM »
Too bad I sold my helium tanks! 

The balloon projects are very cool and the video is great but, as already been discussed, there is so much lens distortion in the cameras used you can tell anything about the shape of the earth.  Too bad.

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2011, 11:31:02 AM »
you could do it yourself most likely with your own camera... possibly get better results with a bit of craftsmanship.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2011, 12:17:21 PM »
Please be sure to disregard Skeleton. He rarely makes much sense.
As for me, it would require proof of gravity and a self-consistent sun path.

What's inconsistent with the sun's path?  ???
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2011, 01:14:34 PM »
Falsifiability was science's answer to methodological problems inherent to the scientific method. It was cooked up by Popper to dodge the problem of induction. What's more, if you actually read about the philosophy of science, you'll learn that falsifiablity is not bullet-proof defining attribute of science that Popper thought it was. Here's a couple of links to get you started:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#CriEva


Long story short, falsifiability doesn't cut the mustard, and is not a solution to the problem of induction that Zetetics (or many others) accept.
"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

Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2011, 01:33:42 PM »
I actually wasn't looking for bullet-proof science, I was just thinking it would be nice if the FE folk considered the case where they weren't correct in the design, and perhaps proposed other alternatives in such a case, (the alternatives may or may not include RE).

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: FET falsifiability
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2011, 01:44:33 PM »
I actually wasn't looking for bullet-proof science, I was just thinking it would be nice if the FE folk considered the case where they weren't correct in the design, and perhaps proposed other alternatives in such a case, (the alternatives may or may not include RE).


The basis of the Zetetic Method is that logical inferences are derived from observational data. Those inferences are obviously subject to scrutiny and refutation. However, falsifiability is no more the answer for Zeteticism than it was for the scientific method.
"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