Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:11:23 PM

The argument that appearance is reality is evidence of borderline psychosis. I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

Really?  When I look at an apple, and smell an apple, and taste an apple, I perceive an apple.  Are you suggesting that it's unreasonable for me to assume that I am seeing and smelling and tasting an apple?  Are you saying that what I perceive to be an apple doesn't exactly exist as an apple in reality?

Talk about borderline psychosis.

Attacking a straw man is always fun, ain't it?

I didn't say that at all. Appearance can in many or most cases reflect the actual nature of an object, but not in all cases. The FET argument of "Earth looks flat from my errant human eyes from an unbelievably limited perspective, therefore it is flat" is one of these cases where it does not follow.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 06:19:58 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:11:23 PM

The argument that appearance is reality is evidence of borderline psychosis. I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

Really?  When I look at an apple, and smell an apple, and taste an apple, I perceive an apple.  Are you suggesting that it's unreasonable for me to assume that I am seeing and smelling and tasting an apple?  Are you saying that what I perceive to be an apple doesn't exactly exist as an apple in reality?

Talk about borderline psychosis.

Attacking a straw man is always fun, ain't it?

I didn't attack a straw man.  If you make a ridiculous, easily picked apart argument, expect to see it refuted.

I didn't say that at all. Appearance can in many or most cases reflect the actual nature of an object, but not in all cases. The FET argument of "Earth looks flat from my errant human eyes from an unbelievably limited perspective, therefore it is flat" is one of these cases where it does not follow.

Ah, moving the goalposts.  So why exactly do you consider the Earth to be a special case?

I didn't attack a straw man.  If you make a ridiculous, easily picked apart argument, expect to see it refuted.

You did. My point was that there are some cases where reality is different from appearance. I didn't say in all cases.

Your example of an apple is one of the cases where it is rational to assume it really is an apple.

Ah, moving the goalposts.  So why exactly do you consider the Earth to be a special case?

Because observation of such a large object from such a close proximity obviously only gives a limited picture of the object as a whole. People, as well as cameras, have seen Earth from a proper distance to judge its shape and have determined it is an oblate spheroid. You have never seen the shape of Earth.
Because limited observation from

I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

I see no qualifier that you are just talking about "some" things. 

Because observation of such a large object from such a close proximity obviously only gives a limited picture of the object as a whole. People, as well as cameras, have seen Earth from a proper distance to judge its shape and have determined it is an oblate spheroid. You have never seen the shape of Earth.
Because limited observation from

The direct and immediate sensorial evidence on which I base my conclusion is... well, direct and immediate.  I don't see how an alleged appearance of curvature from several miles away is a better indicator of the Earth's true shape than what I observe when I'm up close and personal to it.  There are any number of FE-compatible reasons why there might appear to be curvature from very high up, for example the possibility that you are just viewing the edge of the circle of land lit up by the sun, or (as Cat Earth Theory recently pointed out) the illusory effects of bendy light. 

At any rate the appearance of the Earth from high up certainly doesn't prove anything about its shape, so it's not strong enough to overturn what I've observed with my own eyes every day of my life.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:11:23 PM

I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

I see no qualifier that you are just talking about "some" things. 

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:42:50 PM

Because observation of such a large object from such a close proximity obviously only gives a limited picture of the object as a whole. People, as well as cameras, have seen Earth from a proper distance to judge its shape and have determined it is an oblate spheroid. You have never seen the shape of Earth.
Because limited observation from

The direct and immediate sensorial evidence on which I base my conclusion is... well, direct and immediate.  I don't see how an alleged appearance of curvature from several miles away is a better indicator of the Earth's true shape than what I observe when I'm up close and personal to it.  There are any number of FE-compatible reasons why there might appear to be curvature from very high up, for example the possibility that you are just viewing the edge of the circle of land lit up by the sun, or (as Cat Earth Theory recently pointed out) the illusory effects of bendy light. 

At any rate the appearance of the Earth from high up certainly doesn't prove anything about its shape, so it's not strong enough to overturn what I've observed with my own eyes every day of my life.

If Earth was round, due to its size and your closeness to it it would still appear flat, so that is an invalid argument.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:04:03 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:11:23 PM

I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

I see no qualifier that you are just talking about "some" things. 

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:42:50 PM

Because observation of such a large object from such a close proximity obviously only gives a limited picture of the object as a whole. People, as well as cameras, have seen Earth from a proper distance to judge its shape and have determined it is an oblate spheroid. You have never seen the shape of Earth.
Because limited observation from

The direct and immediate sensorial evidence on which I base my conclusion is... well, direct and immediate.  I don't see how an alleged appearance of curvature from several miles away is a better indicator of the Earth's true shape than what I observe when I'm up close and personal to it.  There are any number of FE-compatible reasons why there might appear to be curvature from very high up, for example the possibility that you are just viewing the edge of the circle of land lit up by the sun, or (as Cat Earth Theory recently pointed out) the illusory effects of bendy light. 

At any rate the appearance of the Earth from high up certainly doesn't prove anything about its shape, so it's not strong enough to overturn what I've observed with my own eyes every day of my life.

If Earth was round, due to its size and your closeness to it it would still appear flat, so that is an invalid argument.

No, that is an invalid argument.  The fact that the Earth could, conceivably, be round and still appear flat on the surface is not evidence that the Earth is round and appears flat on the surface.  Like so much so-called evidence in favor of RET, it is ultimately nothing more than mindless speculation... again, perfectly fine in science-fiction, but not really appropriate in a venue of rational debate such as this. 

Also, there are more ways that we have to take for granted that our senses are deceiving us to accept RET.  The appearance from close up only scratches the surface (again, pardon the pun).

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:10:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:04:03 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:11:23 PM

I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

I see no qualifier that you are just talking about "some" things. 

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:42:50 PM

Because observation of such a large object from such a close proximity obviously only gives a limited picture of the object as a whole. People, as well as cameras, have seen Earth from a proper distance to judge its shape and have determined it is an oblate spheroid. You have never seen the shape of Earth.
Because limited observation from

The direct and immediate sensorial evidence on which I base my conclusion is... well, direct and immediate.  I don't see how an alleged appearance of curvature from several miles away is a better indicator of the Earth's true shape than what I observe when I'm up close and personal to it.  There are any number of FE-compatible reasons why there might appear to be curvature from very high up, for example the possibility that you are just viewing the edge of the circle of land lit up by the sun, or (as Cat Earth Theory recently pointed out) the illusory effects of bendy light. 

At any rate the appearance of the Earth from high up certainly doesn't prove anything about its shape, so it's not strong enough to overturn what I've observed with my own eyes every day of my life.

If Earth was round, due to its size and your closeness to it it would still appear flat, so that is an invalid argument.

No, that is an invalid argument.  The fact that the Earth could, conceivably, be round and still appear flat on the surface is not evidence that the Earth is round and appears flat on the surface.  Like so much so-called evidence in favor of RET, it is ultimately nothing more than mindless speculation... again, perfectly fine in science-fiction, but not really appropriate in a venue of rational debate such as this. 

Also, there are more ways that we have to take for granted that our senses are deceiving us to accept RET.  The appearance from close up only scratches the surface (again, pardon the pun).

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

If Earth was round, due to its size and your closeness to it it would still appear flat, so that is an invalid argument.

This would also be true if the earth were the shape of a gigantic turtle.  I find that about equally as likely that it is a sphere. Why would you assume the earth is a turtle just because in some circumstance it might be? It might be any number of shapes, might it not?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:10:45 PM

If Earth was round, due to its size and your closeness to it it would still appear flat, so that is an invalid argument.

This would also be true if the earth were the shape of a gigantic turtle.  I find that about equally as likely that it is a sphere. Why would you assume the earth is a turtle just because in some circumstance it might be? It might be any number of shapes, might it not?

Yes it might, which was why we incorrectly thought Earth was flat for thousands of years until we were able to see it from a proper distance.

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

It is the only direct, immediate sensorial evidence we have.  I feel that that the Earth is flat is less a matter of something that's been proven and more a matter of something that's just common sense.  There simply is no such evidence that the Earth is round.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:26:19 PM

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

It is the only direct, immediate sensorial evidence we have.  I feel that that the Earth is flat is less a matter of something that's been proven and more a matter of something that's just common sense.  There simply is no such evidence that the Earth is round.

This is the lowest standard for evidence possible, and as I have shown in other threads, optical illusions show us that our human eyes are easily fooled.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:33:27 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:26:19 PM

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

It is the only direct, immediate sensorial evidence we have.  I feel that that the Earth is flat is less a matter of something that's been proven and more a matter of something that's just common sense.  There simply is no such evidence that the Earth is round.

This is the lowest standard for evidence possible, and as I have shown in other threads, optical illusions show us that our human eyes are easily fooled.

What we directly observe is the lowest standard for evidence possible?  Can you explain why?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:36:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:33:27 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:26:19 PM

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

It is the only direct, immediate sensorial evidence we have.  I feel that that the Earth is flat is less a matter of something that's been proven and more a matter of something that's just common sense.  There simply is no such evidence that the Earth is round.

This is the lowest standard for evidence possible, and as I have shown in other threads, optical illusions show us that our human eyes are easily fooled.

What we directly observe is the lowest standard for evidence possible?  Can you explain why?

You have never directly observed enough of Earth to determine its shape. What most humans have seen (except for pictures from space, which prove its roundness) of Earth leads equally to Earth being round, flat, or really any other curved shape. Luckily, we have the technology now to prove it is a spheroid.

If the eyes are so easily deceived and our direct-sensorial evidence is to be rejected, why would I trust the view of earth that shows curvature? Why would I trust it to be any shape at all? All my senses and reason may be faulty, so all perceptions would be flawed. Why pursue any objective truth at this point?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:38:00 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:36:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:33:27 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:26:19 PM

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

It is the only direct, immediate sensorial evidence we have.  I feel that that the Earth is flat is less a matter of something that's been proven and more a matter of something that's just common sense.  There simply is no such evidence that the Earth is round.

This is the lowest standard for evidence possible, and as I have shown in other threads, optical illusions show us that our human eyes are easily fooled.

What we directly observe is the lowest standard for evidence possible?  Can you explain why?

You have never directly observed enough of Earth to determine its shape. What most humans have seen (except for pictures from space, which prove its roundness) of Earth leads equally to Earth being round, flat, or really any other curved shape. Luckily, we have the technology now to prove it is a spheroid.

I've directly observed a fair amount of it; it's always been flat.  And that observation is echoed by people from around the world; amazingly even people who believe the Earth is round will concede that it looks flat everywhere but on this forum.  I'm quite confident it's a sound judgment until I'm shown extraordinary evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:43:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:38:00 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:36:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 07:33:27 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:26:19 PM

I didn't mean to say that was proof it was round. It just defeats the proof that it's flat, because we cannot possibly distinguish whether it is round or flat by looking at it while remaining on the ground.

It is the only direct, immediate sensorial evidence we have.  I feel that that the Earth is flat is less a matter of something that's been proven and more a matter of something that's just common sense.  There simply is no such evidence that the Earth is round.

This is the lowest standard for evidence possible, and as I have shown in other threads, optical illusions show us that our human eyes are easily fooled.

What we directly observe is the lowest standard for evidence possible?  Can you explain why?

You have never directly observed enough of Earth to determine its shape. What most humans have seen (except for pictures from space, which prove its roundness) of Earth leads equally to Earth being round, flat, or really any other curved shape. Luckily, we have the technology now to prove it is a spheroid.

I've directly observed a fair amount of it; it's always been flat.  And that observation is echoed by people from around the world; amazingly even people who believe the Earth is round will concede that it looks flat everywhere but on this forum.  I'm quite confident it's a sound judgment until I'm shown extraordinary evidence to the contrary.

If the eyes are so easily deceived and our direct-sensorial evidence is to be rejected, why would I trust the view of earth that shows curvature? Why would I trust it to be any shape at all? All my senses and reason may be faulty, so all perceptions would be flawed. Why pursue any objective truth at this point?

Like I said, direct observation can very much lead to accurate statements about an object, but you have to consider the ability to see enough of an object to determine its shape. We simply don't see enough of Earth to determine whether it's flat or round (because it would look the same to us if it were either shape).

Yes it might, which was why we incorrectly thought Earth was flat for thousands of years until we were able to see it from a proper distance.

This isn't a good tack to take.  Pictures from space are far from the only evidence that the earth isn't flat.

The most obvious evidence is the distinct horizon itself, which shouldn't occur on a flat earth.  Not to mention the motion of the sun.

Older flat earth theories worked because they only covered a small part of the world.  The sun could rise and set over the entire world at once, and the stars could be arranged on a dome.

The greeks started to abandon these ideas when they noticed ships disappearing over the horizon, and people started to notice that the sun rises and sets at different times in different places, and that the angle of the sun was even different.  The tiny flat earths of different parts of the world were really just parts of a giant globe. 

It's not a big leap to make and the vast majority of the human population has made it because it fits far better with our observations than any model modern FEers have come up with.  Remember that.  Don't get stuck on the whole "it looks flat" thing, it doesn't if you actually look in the right places.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 07:31:14 PM

Yes it might, which was why we incorrectly thought Earth was flat for thousands of years until we were able to see it from a proper distance.

This isn't a good tack to take.  Pictures from space are far from the only evidence that the earth isn't flat.

The most obvious evidence is the distinct horizon itself, which shouldn't occur on a flat earth.  Not to mention the motion of the sun.

Older flat earth theories worked because they only covered a small part of the world.  The sun could rise and set over the entire world at once, and the stars could be arranged on a dome.

The greeks started to abandon these ideas when they noticed ships disappearing over the horizon, and people started to notice that the sun rises and sets at different times in different places, and that the angle of the sun was even different.  The tiny flat earths of different parts of the world were really just parts of a giant globe. 

It's not a big leap to make and the vast majority of the human population has made it because it fits far better with our observations than any model modern FEers have come up with.  Remember that.  Don't get stuck on the whole "it looks flat" thing, it doesn't if you actually look in the right places.

Oh indeed, there are innumerable proofs for Earth's spheroidal shape, but flat Earth theorists tend to mistrust any source of evidence that doesn't rely on direct observation, so I pandered to that bias.

If the eyes are so easily deceived and our direct-sensorial evidence is to be rejected, why would I trust the view of earth that shows curvature? Why would I trust it to be any shape at all? All my senses and reason may be faulty, so all perceptions would be flawed. Why pursue any objective truth at this point?

Okay then, I see sunsets, so on a flat earth the sun must be going under us, but wait aren't there timezones? Let's say that's a big giant hoax and the whole world is in on it except you. Okay, now if it was under us how the hell would the sun be heating the Earth at such a constant temperature if it was so close to us?It can't. I can feel that, so you would be a hypocrite if you said I couldn't trust that. Oh wait, I see. The earth must be so thin that the sun can keep it at a constant temperature. But wait, wouldn't stuff be falling through the earth's surface for that to be possible? If there was an atmosphere in the flat earth theory the atmospheric layers would have to be flat also. Oh wait, the gasses would just fall off the earth, or is that ice wall just mighty high (which btw would debunk sun sets because light has to shine through a good amount of air pollution to appear orange, and no one has ever SEEN it).

I can already here you saying "THE EARTH DOESN'T GO UNDER US!". Okay, so if that was the case how come the sun looks as big as it does at noon during sun set? Hmm... my "sensorial evidence" would be really horrible if I said the sun always stayed on our side of the world (quite literally).

I did disprove you with your own logic, but I know I probably just wasted 10 minutes of my life because your going to just further prove my FE'ers are in denial theory by posting "incorrect," and not posting anything to back up your statement. Either that, or you just mixed up the meaning of total faith and evidence.

Just give up trying to tell them your evidence, they will never change. They pretend to be scientists searching for proof of something they 'believe' (This is the key word here) exists, which IS NOT science by the way. Calling themselves theorists when their 'theory' doesn't even meet the criteria and is barely a hypothesis. If it is peer reviewed, judging by the stupidity of the FE'ers responses and the lack of support by ninety percent of people on the forum its not, then clearly it would not pass.

And then on top of all this they will reply with some overused philosophical jargon that they learnt in their first year of college or just looked up on wikipedia without going out and learning even a tiny bit about science to even prove their 'beliefs' or to understand how we see ours.

What upsets me is that for thousands of years science has been held back by people believing just shit they make up, we used to 'believe' the Earth was flat because we didn't know any better. Why did this opinion then change?

Either that, or you just mixed up the meaning of total faith and evidence.

Then you've missed the point of the entire discussion. All evidence is faith-based. You must trust (or distrust) all evidence. Direct-sensorial evidence is the most trustworthy of evidence; how could it be otherwise?

What upsets me is that for thousands of years science has been held back by people believing just shit they make up, we used to 'believe' the Earth was flat because we didn't know any better. Why did this opinion then change?

On the contrary, far more damage has been done to "science" by the dogmatic clinging to error, however comfortable or popular that error may be.

Direct-sensorial evidence is the most trustworthy of evidence; how could it be otherwise?

It's not because of this: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55076.msg1365587.html#msg1365587

How is indirect evidence in anyway more free from these biases?

Quote from: flamen0d on June 30, 2012, 04:42:47 AM

Either that, or you just mixed up the meaning of total faith and evidence.

Then you've missed the point of the entire discussion. All evidence is faith-based. You must trust (or distrust) all evidence. Direct-sensorial evidence is the most trustworthy of evidence; how could it be otherwise?

What is your evidence that direct-sensorial evidence is the most trustworthy evidence?

How is indirect evidence in anyway more free from these biases?

It's not hindered by subconscious processes, bad weather and the shape of our eyeballs.

No, it's subject to someone else's subconscious processes, et al.

Quote from: flamen0d on June 30, 2012, 04:42:47 AM

Either that, or you just mixed up the meaning of total faith and evidence.

Then you've missed the point of the entire discussion. All evidence is faith-based. You must trust (or distrust) all evidence. Direct-sensorial evidence is the most trustworthy of evidence; how could it be otherwise?

How did I miss the point of this entire discussion if I explained how direct-sensorial evidence disproved FET? Please, if you're going to quote my comment and talk shit about it quote the entire thing.

It's been a while since I was on this forum.

 Evidence is cheap and easy to come by; so what makes a theory scientific? firstly you  have to have a set of empirical data (which can be counted as evidence, though empirical data can be used as counter-evidence, aswell) and a system of logically consistent statments have to be put forward (a theory), which explains the empirical data, but which can also be easily falsified, by the falsification of even one of its statements.

when someone claims something, the burden of proof is on them: thinkingman never claimed anything, he asked for evidence and the guy with "the best avvy" automatically assumed thinkingman was a globulist (although this might be true, it has no bearing on the argument what-so-ever, and shows ad-hominem tendencies). the evidence from observation is cheap, because observation without a theory and furthermore a philosphical method is easily usurped by people who do not understand how argumentation in science and philosophy are carried out.

Science does not look for truth, only consistent explanations (theories) for gathered data; when it comes up with an explanation for the data it tries to falsify the theory, and when it is not falsified (but there are clear falsifiable statements within the theory) at each test it survives (which means that it is corroborated, though not claimed to be true). if the flat earth is a theory worth taking up, it has to show why its model explains all the data that the spherical model explains, but better and more concisely. Any claim to conspiracy immediatly refutes your argument, unless the conspiracy  theory can be conclusively falsified, and the means for how it could be done properly explained (otherwise the claim of conspiricy is a red-herring, used to conceal irrationality). I am neither for nor against the flat-earth theory.

the most important part of a theory is not its evidence, but how it fits and incorporates all evidence (that can be repeatedly gathered) and its potential to be (intersubjectively) falsified.

as, hopefully, a few of you can tell this is a Popperian view of how science is though to be done. which seems to be accepted by the majority of scientists, though also challenged in the philosophy of science, on the basis that its rules are too demanding. if you want to discuss the philosophy I am more than up for a little discussion of these issues.

when someone claims something, the burden of proof is on them: thinkingman never claimed anything, he asked for evidence and the guy with "the best avvy" automatically assumed thinkingman was a globulist (although this might be true, it has no bearing on the argument what-so-ever, and shows ad-hominem tendencies).

You don't think he made his position abundantly clear?  I gave him exactly what he asked for; as I pointed out it's not my fault he rejected it.  I didn't start criticizing the evidence for RET until after he did the same for FET.   I gave a tit for a tat.

btw, FET is expressly not scientific.