Does it look flat?

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

So where does that leave us, rottingroom? Does the OP's photo prove anything? Does a photo from an 'astronaut'? What about lots of photos from lots of 'astronauts'? As you rightly say, empirical evidence does not have to be first hand, but, anything else is considered weaker. I think whoever invented the word intended that the possibility of first hand empirical evidence was a requirement.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?

Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?

In a way yes. This is a sort of collective empiricism. Although when you do that and accept all the data is true, you are trusting the data. Some people could be lazy on the job, there could be bad instruments or some people could even be gundecking. Even so, with enough data it is likely that you are reasonably accurate, at least in this scenario. Legion has a problem with that, which is not surprising. The point of flat earth theory is to not trust. That's why they prefer zetetic method over the scientific. The problem is that if we relied on empiricism only, we wouldn't progress. Science has shown itself to be reliable and most probably correct because it just works.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 10, 2014, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?

Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.

Look it up.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 10, 2014, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?

Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.

For instance, if you're compiling a big database of temperature measurements, you'd want to make sure to include data from sources that use quality equipment, have guidelines for data recording and management, etc. It's not that complicated. But for a big project, with a lot of data, it's not practical, or even reasonable, to collect all the data yourself. Say you wanted to create a global map of temperatures so you can see how they change over time. To you, any such study would be totally invalid, since you can't personally verify every measurement.

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:27:06 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 10, 2014, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 01:40:07 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM

And still no one has come up with a definition of empirical that contradicts mine, or rather those of the dictionaries and encyclopedias. I rest my case.

Nice to see you doing battle as well, scepti. Neither of us will get anywhere with this lot. But, my posts are not meant for them, anyway.

I don't see why it needs to be redefined and I didn't see anyone attempting to do that.

And both of you are hardly attempting to fight a battle. You just make philosophical claims. The two of you are the worst offenders. Never even an attempt at empirical proof or logic at all. Just thoughts. You could learn a lot from Tom Bishop or Spaceship. At least they try.

You don't even know what empirical means do you??? Any of you! No wonder you believe in satellites, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other made up gumpf.

It's just a shame there are so many of you indoctrinated pests lowering the signal to noise ratio for  those who are genuinely interested in truth.

Most of you believe the truth to be found on your TV and in your newspapers...

How did you get that from what I just said? I think I inferred that I agree with your definition. Especially since it came from a dictionary.

I didn't expect you to follow up my statement of equality between you and sceptimatic with some phrasings that sound just like him though.

How can we talk about empirical proof when this thread was started with a photo that people like you believe to be empirical proof?

See the problem?

I don't know if you noticed but I didn't get involved (although I watched) in the discussion about empiricism until just now. Mostly because I do know what empiricism is and I pretty much disagreed with what everyone was saying on both sides.

I disagreed with everyone arguing with you because empiricism does have to do with direct sensory experience and I disagreed with you because empiricism is not the only way to discover things. A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

But RR, if you had a database of recorded temperature measurements, wouldn't you call that empirical data, no matter whether you made those measurements yourself, or compiled them from other sources, as long as you had a reasonable expectation that the data was accurate?

Define reasonable expectation. Seems vague to me.

For instance, if you're compiling a big database of temperature measurements, you'd want to make sure to include data from sources that use quality equipment, have guidelines for data recording and management, etc. It's not that complicated. But for a big project, with a lot of data, it's not practical, or even reasonable, to collect all the data yourself. Say you wanted to create a global map of temperatures so you can see how they change over time. To you, any such study would be totally invalid, since you can't personally verify every measurement.

It wouldn't be totally invalid at all. But, by offloading certain tasks you introduce uncertainty.

I work in automotive engineering (for the last few years). Every engineering firm I've worked for over the last twenty years is regularly audited (at least annually) and non conformances (not following documented  procedures / work instructions) are nearly always found. These audits are carried out by industry bodies and customers.

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!" Much like when were kids and we'd have to mark each others tests by swapping them around.

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"

Scientists are also subject to adversarial review.

I definitely sneer at your attempt of equating peer review with children correcting each others tests. Unlike children grading each other, most scientists are eager to find that their peers are wrong so they can be the one to make a discovery. I see peer review as an opportunity to turn something down, not to blindly say that it is right.

You should probably praise the peer review system since it encourages empiricism as you define it.

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:55:21 PM

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"

Scientists are also subject to adversarial review.

I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?

Just because there's uncertainty in your data doesn't make it non-empirical. It just means there's uncertainty in your data. That's why in science you attempt to quantify that uncertainty and include it in your results.

Imagine if the scientific world wasn't scientific and instead opted for nothing but zeteticism. Let's speculate on which scientific discoveries would have not happened.

Remember, this would mean no testing. The only things we can make conclusions about are direct observations.

Edit: I'm going to make a new topic about this. Please post in there.

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2014, 03:01:29 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:55:21 PM

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"

Scientists are also subject to adversarial review.

I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?

The measurement of a faster than light neutrino.

The discovery of the Higgs Boson (ongoing)

The measurement of the expansion rate of the universe.

String Theory.

The Inflationary model of the Big Bang.

All of these topics were heavily scrutinized by the scientific community and in the case of the neutrino, found to be in error. String Theory is extremely controversial in the scientific community as you will be just as likely to find physicist who thinks it is hogwash as the think it the theory of everything.

Ever watch parliament on tv. Round and round in circles sprouting bullshit.

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2014, 03:01:29 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:55:21 PM

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"

Scientists are also subject to adversarial review.

I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?

Are you suggesting that Global Warming isn't receiving plenty of review from adversaries? 

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

It wouldn't be totally invalid at all. But, by offloading certain tasks you introduce uncertainty.

Of course!  The assumption of uncertainty is at the heart of the scientific method, as well as empiricism:

knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 03:05:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2014, 03:01:29 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:55:21 PM

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"

Scientists are also subject to adversarial review.

I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?

Are you suggesting that Global Warming isn't receiving plenty of review from adversaries? 

Yes I am.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 03:05:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2014, 03:01:29 PM

Quote from: legion on July 10, 2014, 02:55:21 PM

I wonder what sort of auditing 'scientists' are subjected to. I'm sure the answer will be "they audit each other through peer review!"

Scientists are also subject to adversarial review.

I know that was very common in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Any examples since, hmmm, 1980?

The measurement of a faster than light neutrino.

The discovery of the Higgs Boson (ongoing)

The measurement of the expansion rate of the universe.

String Theory.

The Inflationary model of the Big Bang.

All of these topics were heavily scrutinized by the scientific community and in the case of the neutrino, found to be in error. String Theory is extremely controversial in the scientific community as you will be just as likely to find physicist who thinks it is hogwash as the think it the theory of everything.

String theory is not science.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical evidence of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

    1.
    evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
    synonyms:   evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;

To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.

Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:18:42 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

    1.
    evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
    synonyms:   evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;

To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.

OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:27:06 PM

Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.

You don't get to redefine "evidence" as "that which legion judges to be evidence".

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:25:49 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:18:42 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

    1.
    evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
    synonyms:   evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;

To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.

OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:27:06 PM

Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.

He is using the term properly. Evidence is the available body of facts or information that whether or not something is true. Proof is what it is promoted when it is established to be true. It is not, however, empirical evidence. It is a representation of empirical evidence but I believe that without any logical discourse to even suggest it is fake, it is more likely to be a genuine photograph.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:30:03 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:25:49 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:18:42 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

    1.
    evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
    synonyms:   evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;

To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.

OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.