Does it look flat?

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 04, 2014, 05:00:10 AM

Quote from: legion on July 03, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.

This is a fallacy of logic.  One cannot "prove" a negative.  One can only disprove an alleged positive.  For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

Quote

You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Nope.  The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers".  Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers".  We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.

Belief can be defined as  faith,  hope,  supposition, or even just personal opinion.  But no sign of any empirical evidence.

One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless.  Like your belief that the earth is flat.

Sorry.

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 12:26:37 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 04, 2014, 05:00:10 AM

Quote from: legion on July 03, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.

This is a fallacy of logic.  One cannot "prove" a negative.  One can only disprove an alleged positive.  For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

Quote

You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Nope.  The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers".  Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers".  We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.

Belief can be defined as  faith,  hope,  supposition, or even just personal opinion.  But no sign of any empirical evidence.

One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless.  Like your belief that the earth is flat.

Sorry.

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

A setting sun is impossible on a flat earth.

Why is North America so huge?

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 12:26:37 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 04, 2014, 05:00:10 AM

Quote from: legion on July 03, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.

This is a fallacy of logic.  One cannot "prove" a negative.  One can only disprove an alleged positive.  For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

Quote

You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Nope.  The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers".  Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers".  We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.

Belief can be defined as  faith,  hope,  supposition, or even just personal opinion.  But no sign of any empirical evidence.

One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless.  Like your belief that the earth is flat.

Sorry.

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

This the definition part you conveniently left out:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).

There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:

Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 04, 2014, 01:10:50 PM

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 12:26:37 PM

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

This the definition part you conveniently left out:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).

There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:

Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.

I conveniently left nothing out. I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).

The other "evidences" put forward by Shmeggley are not verifiable empirically and are thus invalid.

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 02:23:49 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 04, 2014, 01:10:50 PM

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 12:26:37 PM

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

This the definition part you conveniently left out:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).

There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:

Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.

I conveniently left nothing out. I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).

The other "evidences" put forward by Shmeggley are not verifiable empirically and are thus invalid.

I know what you were trying to do legion, you're trying to redefine "empirical evidence" as evidence gained only through one's own senses. But you don't get to do that. I can redefine "chocolate bar" as "gold bar", but I'm not going to get rich that way. Nor do you advance your argument by making up your own definitions for words. Unless you can give some reason why "empirical" must be redefined as only through one's own senses (which is a useless definition by the way, since there can never be a shared body of knowledge gained through empirical evidence, because nobody will be able to accept any evidence they didn't discover themselves under this definition), besides as a cheap tactic just to win an argument, then I think you're done.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 04, 2014, 02:41:30 PM

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 02:23:49 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 04, 2014, 01:10:50 PM

Quote from: legion on July 04, 2014, 12:26:37 PM

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

This the definition part you conveniently left out:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).

There's nothing about the definition that makes secondary or indirect observation non-empirical. So by that definition, these are all empirical evidence of the Earth being round:

Foucault pendulums
ISS video of the Earth from orbit
Artificial satellites from Sputnik to today
Apparent star motion compared to latitude
Annual and sidereal doppler shift
Etc.

I conveniently left nothing out. I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).

The other "evidences" put forward by Shmeggley are not verifiable empirically and are thus invalid.

I know what you were trying to do legion, you're trying to redefine "empirical evidence" as evidence gained only through one's own senses. But you don't get to do that. I can redefine "chocolate bar" as "gold bar", but I'm not going to get rich that way. Nor do you advance your argument by making up your own definitions for words. Unless you can give some reason why "empirical" must be redefined as only through one's own senses (which is a useless definition by the way, since there can never be a shared body of knowledge gained through empirical evidence, because nobody will be able to accept any evidence they didn't discover themselves under this definition), besides as a cheap tactic just to win an argument, then I think you're done.

Tut, tut Shmeggly. It is you who is attempting to redefine "empirical". Reread the definition I posted.

Yes, some people may accept second hand reports as evidence, but, I do not. Nor should any other rational person.

Edit: Shmeggly, how do you think experiments are repeated? Is that not the basis of science? Being able to duplicate an experiement and get the same results? Empirically. But, nowadays that option has been taken away with the ridiculous particle accelerators and space adventures that the priesthood use to "prove" their theories. Think about it (although you won't).

Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.

Yeah, demanding first hand experience is Zeteticism, not empiricism.

If you could only get truth through Zeteticism, civilisation would not exist.

Civilisation does exist.

Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.

You realize everyone of those definitions leaves the door open to secondary or indirect observation don't you?  You actually proves Shmwggley's point. Well done!

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on July 05, 2014, 03:37:26 AM

Yeah, demanding first hand experience is Zeteticism, not empiricism.

If you could only get truth through Zeteticism, civilisation would not exist.

Civilisation does exist.

Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empirical:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical:

originating in or based on observation or experience

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical

derived from or guided by experience or experiment

Quote from: legion on July 05, 2014, 01:51:02 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on July 05, 2014, 03:37:26 AM

Yeah, demanding first hand experience is Zeteticism, not empiricism.

If you could only get truth through Zeteticism, civilisation would not exist.

Civilisation does exist.

Ergo, Zeteticism isn't very important.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empirical:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

This definition makes a distinction between using experience and observation versus abstraction. It does not say anything about primacy of the senses.

Quote

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical:

originating in or based on observation or experience

A secondary or indirect observation does originate in observation or experience.

Quote

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

Again secondary or indirect observations do rely on or are derived from observation or experiment.

Quote

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical

derived from or guided by experience or experiment

More of the same really.

You don't get to specifically narrow a general definition that can be applied broadly.

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

You are making no sense. Are you high on hallucinogens? That would explain your redefinition of empirical evidence.

Quote from: legion on July 05, 2014, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

You are making no sense. Are you high on hallucinogens? That would explain your redefinition of empirical evidence.

As Hominem. I see you are done then. Thanks for playing and come back when you think you can play nice.

You implied the only criteria I have to believe a secondary report is its mere existence, but that is absurd. Why wouldn't I scrutinize it?

Empiricism is based on evidence, there's no requirement to personally observe everything with your own eyes.  Wrong. That's "Zeteticism".

Science moves forward by peer review it used to be repeatable experiments, now they just read each others papers?!, we don't just take anyone's word for anything they can imagine.  On the contrary, their methods must be repeatable by independent parties. Define independent and define repeatable. As lay people, that relationship between one experimenter and his peers reviewing his logic, repeating his experiments and scrutinising his conclusions is what allows us to take their empirical findings seriously. So, you take it all on trust. Righto.

All of civilisation is built on the work of the people who came before, if you think things only "count" when you do them yourself from first principles, then leave your possessions where they are, head out into the wild, crack yourself on the head with a rock until you forget everything you ever learnt from anyone and make your own start where you can be sure of everything personally. Let us know how it goes. You have gone off on a tangent. I dispute your redefinition of "empircial". Civilization is still here even though science is often completely unscientific. So your point is moot.

So, you take it all on trust. Righto.

... I was trying to deter people like you from claiming that other peoples sense experiences were empirical for me. They are not. To be truly empirical, one needs to experience the evidence with ones own senses. Therefore, the behaviour of the setting sun cannot be proven empirically (as far as I'm aware).

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 05, 2014, 08:45:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2014, 02:28:04 PM

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the only criteria to believe secondary report is that someone says so. We have other criteria for direct observation as well don't we?  We don't trust eyewitness reports of people who are high on hallucinogens do we? Stop being reductionist.

I also wonder, if you saw an orange glow, felt heat and smelled smoke from the other side of your bedroom door, would you conclude its a fire or would you remain agnostic until actual flames made an appearance before calling 911.

What he's doing is ignoring the fire alarm somebody else pulled until he sees the fire, smells the smoke and feels the heat himself. It's moronic.

What's moronic is you comparing self preservation with bad science. But, I've come to expect that from you, shmeggley.