The Human Eye is definitely the right tool to determine the shape of the earth

It doesn't work for you so Theodolite is trolling?

No. Like I said, I suspected that he was trolling. Now that others have confirmed that this picture is an illusion, I understand his point, even though I can't see it myself. Nonetheless, it's interesting that you would try to misinterpret my words like this.

Try the link, there is another illusion there.

Hmm, that kind of works, yeah.

And I'm not trolling, I provided significant evidence that zetecism is flawed due to the human eye being unreliable.

Oh, I absolutely agree. What we see with our eyes can serve as evidence, but not proof.

Also, no one has answered my question about putting stakes in line

Depends on what kind of precision you're expecting. I could probably make a good try, but it's likely to be imperfect.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 28, 2011, 09:42:31 AM

It doesn't work for you so Theodolite is trolling?

No. Like I said, I suspected that he was trolling. Now that others have confirmed that this picture is an illusion, I understand his point, even though I can't see it myself. Nonetheless, it's interesting that you would try to misinterpret my words like this.

Quote from: Theodolite on October 28, 2011, 10:27:53 AM

Try the link, there is another illusion there.

Hmm, that kind of works, yeah.

Quote from: Theodolite on October 28, 2011, 10:27:53 AM

And I'm not trolling, I provided significant evidence that zetecism is flawed due to the human eye being unreliable.

Oh, I absolutely agree. What we see with our eyes can serve as evidence, but not proof.

Quote from: Theodolite on October 28, 2011, 10:27:53 AM

Also, no one has answered my question about putting stakes in line

Depends on what kind of precision you're expecting. I could probably make a good try, but it's likely to be imperfect.

Definitely, in fact the error is typically around 4 times greater then the average person imagines, due to people incorrectly believing/imagining that their field of view is 180 degrees

Hmm, yes. I'd probably intuitively position myself behind the stakes, wouldn't I?

That is true, in fact there are no examples that I can think of where the human eye is the best tool to determine anything.  It is a useful tool for us, you can think of it as being similar as the human hands ability to freedraw a straight line, it works, kinda, but is definitely not the best way to do it.

Agreed.

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Well, that is the opposite of reality, but most unscientific beliefs are

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2011, 04:53:52 PM

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Well, that is the opposite of reality, but most unscientific beliefs are

What tool would you choose to identify a Stop sign?  A traffic light?  The car next to you?  An appropriate mate (at first)?  Food?  Your House?  Street signs?  A dog?  A crayon?  A computer mouse?  A soda?  A street light?  A circular object?  A fire hydrant?  Fire?  The sky?  The ground?  the computer you work on?  Words?  The colour blue?  The post button?

That's right, almost everything in your everyday experience is identified by sight.

Its not the most conclusive tool or the most accurate, but its certainly the best; why else would it be so well and oft used?  To state otherwise is to ignore the truth to simply try to win an internet argument.

What tool can you take away that will do the most damage in the identification of the vast majority of everyday objects? 
Smell?  Doubtful.  Taste?  I don't go around licking stop signs.  Touch?  Better hope whatever information presented is also presented in a textured manner.  Hearing?  Second place surely, unless you happen to be daredevil.

the eye is useful for identifying known objects that are in the center of your field of view.  That has nothing to do with this conversation.

Identifying objects is not the same as determining distances and orientations

That is true, in fact there are no examples that I can think of where the human eye is the best tool to determine anything.

This is its relevance.  You said nonsense.  Its the best tool for identifying known objects or unknown objects in your field of view. 

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Isn't your theory based mostly around explaining why the earth doesn't look flat in many situations?

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2011, 04:53:52 PM

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Isn't your theory based mostly around explaining why the earth doesn't look flat in many situations?

My theory is based off of reality.

Yes the earth doesn't look flat in many instances.  This does not make the human eye any less amazing or adept at identification.

Quote from: Theodolite on October 31, 2011, 03:34:00 PM

That is true, in fact there are no examples that I can think of where the human eye is the best tool to determine anything.

This is its relevance.  You said nonsense.  Its the best tool for identifying known objects or unknown objects in your field of view.

As I said, this is your opinion.  Im pretty sure a robot eye connected to google can identify unknown objects faster than a human can identify objects that are unknown to it

Quote from: General Disarray on November 01, 2011, 09:08:51 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2011, 04:53:52 PM

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Isn't your theory based mostly around explaining why the earth doesn't look flat in many situations?

My theory is based off of reality.

Yes the earth doesn't look flat in many instances.  This does not make the human eye any less amazing or adept at identification.

It does, however, make it not the right tool to determine the overall shape of the earth.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2011, 08:25:03 AM

Quote from: Theodolite on October 31, 2011, 03:34:00 PM

That is true, in fact there are no examples that I can think of where the human eye is the best tool to determine anything.

This is its relevance.  You said nonsense.  Its the best tool for identifying known objects or unknown objects in your field of view.

As I said, this is your opinion.  Im pretty sure a robot eye connected to google can identify unknown objects faster than a human can identify objects that are unknown to it

Not if you want to make immediate use of that data.  Which almost every time you do.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2011, 01:27:55 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on November 01, 2011, 09:08:51 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2011, 04:53:52 PM

The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Isn't your theory based mostly around explaining why the earth doesn't look flat in many situations?

My theory is based off of reality.

Yes the earth doesn't look flat in many instances.  This does not make the human eye any less amazing or adept at identification.

It does, however, make it not the right tool to determine the overall shape of the earth.

Couldn't agree more.  In fact, its the cause of many to proclaim with faith in Columbus above: "I can see the curvature of the Earth at the BEACH!"

You should tell that to the FE'ers who proclaim that "the earth must be flat because it looks flat".

You should tell that to the FE'ers who proclaim that "the earth must be flat because it looks flat".

I do when I see it.  However, for the most part FE'ers will say "The earth looks flat, so theres no reason to believe it is round"

Yes, that is when their willful ignorance of all evidence to the contrary comes into play. What really bothers me is when they start inventing fantasies such as:

• The Universal Accelerator
• Bendy Light
• "Aetheric Eddification"
• Tom Bishop's version of perspective
• The conspiracy
• Luminescent moon/sun life
• The anti-moon
• The sub-moon
• The "greater ice wall" (or whatever contains the air)
• Celestial gears
• Whatever causes the celestial bodies to remain above the earth and moving as they do
• Dinosaurs building boats to cross the oceans
• "Stratelites" which produce GPS signals

to construct a fantasy world in which the earth could be flat.

Yes, that is when their willful ignorance of all evidence to the contrary comes into play. What really bothers me is when they start inventing fantasies such as:

• The Universal Accelerator
• Bendy Light
• "Aetheric Eddification"
• Tom Bishop's version of perspective
• The conspiracy
• Luminescent moon/sun life
• The anti-moon
• The sub-moon
• The "greater ice wall" (or whatever contains the air)
• Celestial gears
• Whatever causes the celestial bodies to remain above the earth and moving as they do
• Dinosaurs building boats to cross the oceans
• "Stratelites" which produce GPS signals

to construct a fantasy world in which the earth could be flat.

It's called the create a new answer to an unanswerable question. That's the M.O. of the FES.