what would it look like?

Ski makes a perfectly clear analogy, Markjo. Don't try and deflect like that.

How is a supernatural being analogous to the shape of the earth? 

Why is a room full of invisible fairies just as likely as the room being empty? Isn't it more likely that the room is just as it appears?

What about an invisible gas?

Quote from: Wilmore on January 01, 2013, 10:31:22 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2012, 04:38:22 PM

Quote from: Ski on December 20, 2012, 02:36:21 PM

That observation is also consistent with the top of a giant starfish or doughnut or snow man -- any shape of sufficient size. Should we assume the earth is any of these shapes? 

No, but if observations do not conflict with the earth being any of those shapes, then you should not dismiss them out of hand.

What is the difference between not dismissing any given model, and not accepting any given model?

It's the difference between disproving a given model and choosing to not even consider a given model.  If you cannot show a reason why a particular model is not true, then there is no reason to assume that the model is false.

It's sort of like the difference between you winning and me losing.  Just because I lose, that does not always mean that you win.  Or, to put it another way, just because you find problems with RET, that does not mean that FET is correct.

Please read my question again markjo, because your response is not really an answer to the question I have asked.

Quote from: markjo on January 02, 2013, 05:26:34 AM

Quote from: Wilmore on January 01, 2013, 10:31:22 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2012, 04:38:22 PM

Quote from: Ski on December 20, 2012, 02:36:21 PM

That observation is also consistent with the top of a giant starfish or doughnut or snow man -- any shape of sufficient size. Should we assume the earth is any of these shapes? 

No, but if observations do not conflict with the earth being any of those shapes, then you should not dismiss them out of hand.

What is the difference between not dismissing any given model, and not accepting any given model?

It's the difference between disproving a given model and choosing to not even consider a given model.  If you cannot show a reason why a particular model is not true, then there is no reason to assume that the model is false.

It's sort of like the difference between you winning and me losing.  Just because I lose, that does not always mean that you win.  Or, to put it another way, just because you find problems with RET, that does not mean that FET is correct.

Please read my question again markjo, because your response is not really an answer to the question I have asked.

Please read my response to Ski's question again Wilmore, because your question does not really follow the comment that I made.

I'm afraid it does markjo, and I think Pongo, Ski, and I are all thinking along much the same lines. Ski's point is simply that all possibilities are equally possible, if possibility is all that we are talking about. However, though they are all equally possible, they cannot all be equally true. Specifically, some (indeed many) possibilities are mutually exclusive. If our goal is to determine which possibilities are true, we must set criteria which believe lead from the merely possible to the actual.


Saying that we "should not dismiss [a possibility] out of hand" is therefore a meaningless comment. The fact that it is possible means, by definition, that it is not impossible, and therefore we cannot dismiss it out of hand. There is no practical difference between not dismissing a model and not accepting it. However, when it comes to what we will accept, Ski is quite right to demand evidence of what is actually true, for that is not so clear-cut: one needs criteria for determining the veridical actual.

I'm afraid it does markjo, and I think Pongo, Ski, and I are all thinking along much the same lines. Ski's point is simply that all possibilities are equally possible, if possibility is all that we are talking about. However, though they are all equally possible, they cannot all be equally true. Specifically, some (indeed many) possibilities are mutually exclusive. If our goal is to determine which possibilities are true, we must set criteria which believe lead from the merely possible to the actual.

Who said that they are all equally possible?  According to RET, roughly spherical is the most likely shape.  The other shapes that Ski mentioned are merely a straw man attempt to ridicule RET.

Saying that we "should not dismiss [a possibility] out of hand" is therefore a meaningless comment. The fact that it is possible means, by definition, that it is not impossible, and therefore we cannot dismiss it out of hand. There is no practical difference between not dismissing a model and not accepting it. However, when it comes to what we will accept, Ski is quite right to demand evidence of what is actually true, for that is not so clear-cut: one needs criteria for determining the veridical actual.

I'm saying that if you want to be as intellectually honest as you claim to be, then you must go where the evidence leads you, even if it contradicts your personal world view.  If evidence suggests that the world is snowman shaped, then you can't let your personal bias allow you to dismiss that evidence just because you don't like it.  You need to find some stronger evidence that contradicts the snowman shaped evidence.  However, this is moot seeing as I am not asking you to consider that the earth might be snowman shaped.  I'm just trying to make a point.

I've already admitted that a giant globe seems equally likely as a giant star fish; I'm not sure what else you could want of me.

How would it not be evident we live on a star fish shape? Same with a snow man, From one spherical portion wouldn't you be able to see at certain points that there's more sections that make it up? None of these shapes match what is observed on Earth besides a sphere or some flat thing.

I'm afraid it does markjo, and I think Pongo, Ski, and I are all thinking along much the same lines. Ski's point is simply that all possibilities are equally possible, if possibility is all that we are talking about. However, though they are all equally possible, they cannot all be equally true. Specifically, some (indeed many) possibilities are mutually exclusive. If our goal is to determine which possibilities are true, we must set criteria which believe lead from the merely possible to the actual.


Saying that we "should not dismiss [a possibility] out of hand" is therefore a meaningless comment. The fact that it is possible means, by definition, that it is not impossible, and therefore we cannot dismiss it out of hand. There is no practical difference between not dismissing a model and not accepting it. However, when it comes to what we will accept, Ski is quite right to demand evidence of what is actually true, for that is not so clear-cut: one needs criteria for determining the veridical actual.

For all this is an intelligent comment, it goes totally against the grain of the Society's actions. Such as:
Pictures of earth from space? Dismissed out of hand.
The other guy who did the Bedford Level Experiment after Rowbotham and found different results? Dismissed out of hand.
Verified, tested laws of physics and optics regarding perspective and the appearance of the sun and moon? Dismissed out of hand.

Don't try and say they are dismissed due to lack of evidence - there's plenty of evidence, but that too is dismissed until you arrive at keeping what you want.

Who said that they are all equally possible?  According to RET, roughly spherical is the most likely shape.  The other shapes that Ski mentioned are merely a straw man attempt to ridicule RET.

And according to FET, roughly flat is the most likely shape. We're not talking about what the different camps deem more or less likely. We're talking about the distinction between things being equally possible, and and being equally likely. The fact that the view out of one's window (the example you used) does not contradict RET means that it is equally possible, but not equally likely. Because one has to posit the unobserved to make RET work in that instance.

I'm saying that if you want to be as intellectually honest as you claim to be, then you must go where the evidence leads you, even if it contradicts your personal world view.  If evidence suggests that the world is snowman shaped, then you can't let your personal bias allow you to dismiss that evidence just because you don't like it.  You need to find some stronger evidence that contradicts the snowman shaped evidence.  However, this is moot seeing as I am not asking you to consider that the earth might be snowman shaped.  I'm just trying to make a point.

You were attempting to have Ski concede that just because the Earth looks flat, he should not dismiss RET, as it could still be round. The trouble with this is that it means giving the possible, however implausible, equal weighting with the apparent. I don't dismiss the possibility of a round Earth, any more than I dismiss any other possibility about anything. But I don't give equal weight to things just because they are possible. Rather, I seek plausibility and likelihood.

You were attempting to have Ski concede that just because the Earth looks flat, he should not dismiss RET, as it could still be round. The trouble with this is that it means giving the possible, however implausible, equal weighting with the apparent. I don't dismiss the possibility of a round Earth, any more than I dismiss any other possibility about anything. But I don't give equal weight to things just because they are possible. Rather, I seek plausibility and likelihood.

Sorry Wilmore, but I have to call BS here.  I seem to recall a discussion with you some time ago where were talking about sunsets.  Correct me if I wrong, but during that discussion, you admitted that your senses were giving you conflicting information when the earth appears to be flat wherever you go (which does not conflict with RET) yet you also see the sun appearing to set into the horizon (which does conflict with FET).  You chose to resolve this conflict by deciding that some unknown process causes an illusion of the sun to appearing to set into the horizon when it is really some 3000 miles above the earth.  Yet you refused to consider (what some might consider) the more plausible explanation that the earth is round and the sun really is setting into the horizon.  Seriously, if you are to trust your senses, then even the earth being a relatively small flat disc that the sun can set below is far more plausible than the sun being 3000 miles high at sunset.

Sorry Wilmore, but I have to call BS here.  I seem to recall a discussion with you some time ago where were talking about sunsets.  Correct me if I wrong, but during that discussion, you admitted that your senses were giving you conflicting information when the earth appears to be flat wherever you go (which does not conflict with RET) yet you also see the sun appearing to set into the horizon (which does conflict with FET).  You chose to resolve this conflict by deciding that some unknown process causes an illusion of the sun to appearing to set into the horizon when it is really some 3000 miles above the earth.  Yet you refused to consider (what some might consider) the more plausible explanation that the earth is round and the sun really is setting into the horizon.  Seriously, if you are to trust your senses, then even the earth being a relatively small flat disc that the sun can set below is far more plausible than the sun being 3000 miles high at sunset.

And so we return to a point Ski has already made: why are the Sun's movements indicative of the shape of the Earth? A sunset doesn't make the Earth look any less flat. So I had no reason to believe that the Earth was round. I did not refuse to consider that the Sun was moving 'below' the Earth - indeed I explicitly stated that I considered the possibility that the Sun was setting by moving below the Earth relative to my position. However, this occurred in the same way no matter where and where I made these observations (seasonal shifts aside). Lacking any evidence that the Earth's shape was an illusion, but having readily apparent evidence that it was flat, I concluded that the illusion must lie in the Sun's movements. Moreover, this seemed especially likely simply because the setting of the Sun is accompanied by numerous other optical phenomena, whereas the Earth's surface is not.


The Zetetic Method is not just about trusting your senses, but about resolving sensorial conflict in a logical, empirically grounded manner. Any old hypothetical won't do.

Would it not be more prudent to give more consideration to sizes and shapes of the earth where the sun can set just like it appears to rather than having to invent some sort of implausible mechanism where sun's movements are an illusion just to resolve a contradiction that doesn't need to exist in the first place?

Would it not be more prudent to give more consideration to sizes and shapes of the earth where the sun can set just like it appears to rather than having to invent some sort of implausible mechanism where sun's movements are an illusion just to resolve a contradiction that doesn't need to exist in the first place?

Why is that you view the Sun not being what it appears to be as an implausible "contradiction", but view the Earth not being what it appears to be as worthy of 'prudent consideration'?


I have explained my position. Why do you assume that the Earth is the source of this problem, and not the Sun?

Because FE the only observable things is the horizzon to suggest the earth is flat. You then have to invent a multitude of imposible and bizzare things to make it work.

Bendy light ( no evidence)
Moon shrimps ( no evidence and dosent fit observations)
UA ( no evidence)
Celestial gears ( no evidence and dosent fit observations)
Time inconsistencies in Southern Hemisphere ( dosent fit observations)
Stratilites ( no evidence implausible and dent fit observations)
Space shuttle accidents. ( no theory on Columbia and contradicts FE physics)
Planets orbits ( no explanation)

My list goes on but in a round earth the only thing we need is gravity. Yes we don't understand it fully but we are working on it. At least we only have one thing to find an anserw to good luck on all yours.

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2013, 08:51:59 PM

Would it not be more prudent to give more consideration to sizes and shapes of the earth where the sun can set just like it appears to rather than having to invent some sort of implausible mechanism where sun's movements are an illusion just to resolve a contradiction that doesn't need to exist in the first place?

Why is that you view the Sun not being what it appears to be as an implausible "contradiction", but view the Earth not being what it appears to be as worthy of 'prudent consideration'?


I have explained my position. Why do you assume that the Earth is the source of this problem, and not the Sun?

I'm just saying that you are choosing to ignore possibilities that avoid the apparent contradiction of the earth being an infinite plane and the sun appearing to travel below the horizon.  Believe it or not, some of those possibilities include the earth being flat.

Quote from: markjo on January 11, 2013, 08:08:54 PM

Sorry Wilmore, but I have to call BS here.  I seem to recall a discussion with you some time ago where were talking about sunsets.  Correct me if I wrong, but during that discussion, you admitted that your senses were giving you conflicting information when the earth appears to be flat wherever you go (which does not conflict with RET) yet you also see the sun appearing to set into the horizon (which does conflict with FET).  You chose to resolve this conflict by deciding that some unknown process causes an illusion of the sun to appearing to set into the horizon when it is really some 3000 miles above the earth.  Yet you refused to consider (what some might consider) the more plausible explanation that the earth is round and the sun really is setting into the horizon.  Seriously, if you are to trust your senses, then even the earth being a relatively small flat disc that the sun can set below is far more plausible than the sun being 3000 miles high at sunset.

And so we return to a point Ski has already made: why are the Sun's movements indicative of the shape of the Earth? A sunset doesn't make the Earth look any less flat. So I had no reason to believe that the Earth was round. I did not refuse to consider that the Sun was moving 'below' the Earth - indeed I explicitly stated that I considered the possibility that the Sun was setting by moving below the Earth relative to my position. However, this occurred in the same way no matter where and where I made these observations (seasonal shifts aside). Lacking any evidence that the Earth's shape was an illusion, but having readily apparent evidence that it was flat, I concluded that the illusion must lie in the Sun's movements. Moreover, this seemed especially likely simply because the setting of the Sun is accompanied by numerous other optical phenomena, whereas the Earth's surface is not.


The Zetetic Method is not just about trusting your senses, but about resolving sensorial conflict in a logical, empirically grounded manner. Any old hypothetical won't do.

It's already been established in this thread - and agreed br FE'ers - that the appearance of local flatness would be the case whether the earth is flat, round, doughnut, or any other shape. Therefore your phrase "having readily apparent evidence that it was flat" is meaningless and becomes the failed base of a house-of-cards argument about solar movement. You are using an assumption and then saying that's zetetic.

I'm just saying that you are choosing to ignore possibilities that avoid the apparent contradiction of the earth being an infinite plane and the sun appearing to travel below the horizon.  Believe it or not, some of those possibilities include the earth being flat.

I'm not choosing to ignore them. I acknowledge them to be possible. I keep saying this, so it is you who chooses to ignore what I have said.


However, I have no evidence for them. I am am no more ignoring RET than you are ignoring Triangle Earth Theory, or whatever.

But you ARE ignoring it because you rely so heavily on looking out your window. So far, I have yet to hear a FE'r propose a RE explanation for phenomena they observe. The basic model is, I look out my window and the earth looks flat. It is therefore flat. I am confronted with contradictions (like sunsets), so I invent bendy light as a solution because I'm not willing to consider that looking out my window isn't the best evidence. At some point, if you're being honest, you have to look at a contradiction to FET and say, it is quite likely that RET explains this.