Neutral and Objective Evidence Supporting Flat Earth

In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.

The eye isn't perfect. Just look for optical illusions.

Quote from: Anteater7171 on November 17, 2011, 02:19:35 AM

In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.

So, according to your definition, a camera is perfect.

Quote from: Part of the Problem on November 17, 2011, 03:55:32 AM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on November 17, 2011, 02:19:35 AM

In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.

So, according to your definition, a camera is perfect.

A camera for the most part is inorganic, thus the concept of fitness doesn't really apply.

Quote from: Anteater7171 on November 17, 2011, 12:35:25 PM

Quote from: Part of the Problem on November 17, 2011, 03:55:32 AM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on November 17, 2011, 02:19:35 AM

In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.

So, according to your definition, a camera is perfect.

A camera for the most part is inorganic, thus the concept of fitness doesn't really apply.

So, an eye in need of corrective lenses is more reliable than a camera?

Back to the topic.

You don't think that if you were on a very vast sphere, let's say 40,000 km in diameter, you'll have the impression of being on a flat surface?

So, an eye in need of corrective lenses is more reliable than a camera?

Now we have two seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence. However, applying Occam’s razor can sometimes yield unexpected results. In this case, it has granted us a fantastic tidbit of insight into the inner-working of our universe; affording us a precious token of understanding from which we can furbish our great FE knowledge tree.

Quote from: Anteater7171 on November 15, 2011, 01:11:01 AM

Now we have two seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence. However, applying Occam’s razor can sometimes yield unexpected results. In this case, it has granted us a fantastic tidbit of insight into the inner-working of our universe; affording us a precious token of understanding from which we can furbish our great FE knowledge tree.

When will we ever see a correct application of Occam's Razor from an FE'er?

It seems those 20 or so words just don't find a place in the mind of an Ant Eater or a Pizza Planet. Only the word "simplest" seems to be simple enough for them to understand. Phrases like "predictive power" or "fewest assumptions" or "theory" are just too complicated, so we are stuck with their version of the Razor:

    "Whatever you say with the fewest words, or which sounds simpler to a simpleton, is true"

Is it really so difficult to understand what a theory is, and what the predictive power of a theory is? If so, I can only recommend you to let science to the "sciencey" types and dedicate yourself to gardening.

But don't feel bad. At least you wrote "Occam's Razor" right. That is a (small) start.

Occam's Razor only works if the simplest explaination is enough and valid.

Still a long way to go for FET.

Occam's razor can be easily applied to dismiss the conspiracy:

Too many people, too long time, too much money, too much institutions else than your NASA involved, too little proofs (if none)...

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 12:33:54 PM

Occam's razor can be easily applied to dismiss the conspiracy:

Too many people, too long time, too much money, too much institutions else than your NASA involved, too little proofs (if none)...

Well, there are two options:

1. NASA does the extraordinary and amazing on a daily basis, land man on the moon and explore the solar system with robots.

2. NASA cannot do such extraordinary things on a daily basis.

One is simpler than the other.

Because the second option includes an impossible conspiracy, the first option is simpler and more likely.

Quote from: General Disarray on November 19, 2011, 12:40:42 PM

Because the second option includes an impossible conspiracy, the first option is simpler and more likely.

So you're saying that it's easier to go into space and explore the solar system than it is to lie about it? 

Quote from: General Disarray on November 19, 2011, 12:40:42 PM

Because the second option includes an impossible conspiracy, the first option is simpler and more likely.

So you're saying that it's easier to go into space and explore the solar system than it is to lie about it? 

Unrelated.

Lying is easy, making sure no one finds out you are lying[...]

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 12:46:54 PM

Unrelated.

Incorrect.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 12:01:34 PM

Occam's Razor only works if the simplest explaination is enough and valid.

Still a long way to go for FET.

So what's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

simple thing, by a simple person

Space (...) is (...) not (...) science.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 11:44:47 AM

Space (...) is (...) not (...) science.

So what's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?