Intuition.

"Breedlove claims the distinction of having twice walked from his hometown in North Carolina to West Newton. He says he didn't mind the walk, and one of the things which came to his attention during the trip was that the earth is flat, not round. He refutes the assertion that the earth is a sphere, and says in the course of the trip across the country he found no place where the earth seemed to curve."

This was a pretty amusing way to go about showing this, but the point still remains. It's simply intuitive that the earth is flat. I don't have any other evidence that the earth is flat, but I think intuition of our direct observation is stronger than all of the indirect experimentation and calculations that round-earthers provide.

"Breedlove claims the distinction of having twice walked from his hometown in North Carolina to West Newton. He says he didn't mind the walk, and one of the things which came to his attention during the trip was that the earth is flat, not round. He refutes the assertion that the earth is a sphere, and says in the course of the trip across the country he found no place where the earth seemed to curve."

This was a pretty amusing way to go about showing this, but the point still remains. It's simply intuitive that the earth is flat. I don't have any other evidence that the earth is flat, but I think intuition of our direct observation is stronger than all of the indirect experimentation and calculations that round-earthers provide.

So how do you explain measurements, flight times, satellite communication etc.

So how do you explain measurements, flight times, satellite communication etc.

I don't see any inconsistency?

Quote from: Arctangent on July 24, 2014, 09:31:21 AM

"Breedlove claims the distinction of having twice walked from his hometown in North Carolina to West Newton. He says he didn't mind the walk, and one of the things which came to his attention during the trip was that the earth is flat, not round. He refutes the assertion that the earth is a sphere, and says in the course of the trip across the country he found no place where the earth seemed to curve."

This was a pretty amusing way to go about showing this, but the point still remains. It's simply intuitive that the earth is flat. I don't have any other evidence that the earth is flat, but I think intuition of our direct observation is stronger than all of the indirect experimentation and calculations that round-earthers provide.

So how do you explain measurements, flight times, satellite communication etc.

There are many things that are not intuitive that are nonetheless true.  Something being intuitive or not has little bearing on its objective truth.

Tim and time again, the truth has shown that inexcusably granting intuition a free pass toward answers is unreliable. Intuition can be right, but it's failed enough to not allow it to dictate absolute truth.

Please watch this

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Well said.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 24, 2014, 09:43:57 AM

So how do you explain measurements, flight times, satellite communication etc.

I don't see any inconsistency?

Like they prove a round earth.

And the gambler intuitively knows that the next time he goes to the casino, he is going to hit it big.

My wife's intuition told her that he father was in a horrific car accident the other night when he didn't arrive home exactly at 7 when he said he would be home.

Both must be true, because intuition says so.

This was a pretty amusing way to go about showing this, but the point still remains. It's simply intuitive that the earth is flat. I don't have any other evidence that the earth is flat, but I think intuition of our direct observation is stronger than all of the indirect experimentation and calculations that round-earthers provide.

Amazing stuff indeed.

I have to disagree that it's "intuitive" that the earth is flat.  And if you don't have any evidence "other than that" then you have no evidence.

Intuition is and never has been considered evidence in the scientific fraternity.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "indirect experimentation" of science?  Scientists rely absolutely on direct experiments.  It's the flat earthers who have no experiments or calculations to refer to.

Incidentally, you can't conflate "intuition" with "direct observation". 

Amazing stuff indeed.

I have to disagree that it's "intuitive" that the earth is flat.

Why?

And if you don't have any evidence "other than that" then you have no evidence.

You mean empirical evidence which is not the only kind.

Intuition is and never has been considered evidence in the scientific fraternity.

There is no fraternity.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "indirect experimentation" of science?  Scientists rely absolutely on direct experiments.  It's the flat earthers who have no experiments or calculations to refer to.

Every experiment that detects an electron does so indirectly. It has never been directly observed.

Incidentally, you can't conflate "intuition" with "direct observation".

People can conflate whatever they wish, it just may not be correct.

Every experiment that detects an electron does so indirectly. It has never been directly observed.

I'm not sure there is a difference between detecting an electron using a fog chamber and detecting there is a tree out of my window. At the end, direct evidence does not exist, or if it exists it is extremely limited. The tree reflects photons which end into your eye, which are turned into electric signals and which are later interpreted by a massive neural network, and this is extremely simplified. I'd hardly call that direct evidence, and I don't see how adding another step in the already very lengthy process can turn it from direct to indirect.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 04:35:06 AM

Every experiment that detects an electron does so indirectly. It has never been directly observed.

I'm not sure there is a difference between detecting an electron using a fog chamber and detecting there is a tree out of my window. At the end, direct evidence does not exist, or if it exists it is extremely limited. The tree reflects photons which end into your eye, which are turned into electric signals and which are later interpreted by a massive neural network, and this is extremely simplified. I'd hardly call that direct evidence, and I don't see how adding another step in the already very lengthy process can turn it from direct to indirect.

To use the analogy of deer-hunting, a fog chamber is like spotting deer tracks while seeing a tree is like... well... seeing a deer. I think the biggest difference between direct and indirect evidence is that direct evidence does not require further inference than what is observed.

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:45:35 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 04:35:06 AM

Every experiment that detects an electron does so indirectly. It has never been directly observed.

I'm not sure there is a difference between detecting an electron using a fog chamber and detecting there is a tree out of my window. At the end, direct evidence does not exist, or if it exists it is extremely limited. The tree reflects photons which end into your eye, which are turned into electric signals and which are later interpreted by a massive neural network, and this is extremely simplified. I'd hardly call that direct evidence, and I don't see how adding another step in the already very lengthy process can turn it from direct to indirect.

To use the analogy of deer-hunting, a fog chamber is like spotting deer tracks while seeing a tree is like... well... seeing a deer. I think the biggest difference between direct and indirect evidence is that direct evidence does not require further inference than what is observed.

I think bravimone's point is a philosophical one about the what constitutes a posteriori and a priori knowledge. There is a discussion to be made about whether or not our senses are "direct". Read some David Hume's The Critique of Pure Reason to see a large body of work concerning this. In any case, for the purposes of this discussion, we consider observation with our eyes to be directly empirical.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 06:52:10 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:45:35 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 04:35:06 AM

Every experiment that detects an electron does so indirectly. It has never been directly observed.

I'm not sure there is a difference between detecting an electron using a fog chamber and detecting there is a tree out of my window. At the end, direct evidence does not exist, or if it exists it is extremely limited. The tree reflects photons which end into your eye, which are turned into electric signals and which are later interpreted by a massive neural network, and this is extremely simplified. I'd hardly call that direct evidence, and I don't see how adding another step in the already very lengthy process can turn it from direct to indirect.

To use the analogy of deer-hunting, a fog chamber is like spotting deer tracks while seeing a tree is like... well... seeing a deer. I think the biggest difference between direct and indirect evidence is that direct evidence does not require further inference than what is observed.

I think bravimone's point is a philosophical one about the what constitutes a posteriori and a priori knowledge. There is a discussion to be made about whether or not our senses are "direct". Read some David Hume's The Critique of Pure Reason to see a large body of work concerning this. In any case, for the purposes of this discussion, we consider observation with our eyes to be directly empirical.

If that is the case then I relent and should likely read that book.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 06:52:10 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:45:35 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 04:35:06 AM

Every experiment that detects an electron does so indirectly. It has never been directly observed.

I'm not sure there is a difference between detecting an electron using a fog chamber and detecting there is a tree out of my window. At the end, direct evidence does not exist, or if it exists it is extremely limited. The tree reflects photons which end into your eye, which are turned into electric signals and which are later interpreted by a massive neural network, and this is extremely simplified. I'd hardly call that direct evidence, and I don't see how adding another step in the already very lengthy process can turn it from direct to indirect.

To use the analogy of deer-hunting, a fog chamber is like spotting deer tracks while seeing a tree is like... well... seeing a deer. I think the biggest difference between direct and indirect evidence is that direct evidence does not require further inference than what is observed.

I think bravimone's point is a philosophical one about the what constitutes a posteriori and a priori knowledge. There is a discussion to be made about whether or not our senses are "direct". Read some David Hume's The Critique of Pure Reason to see a large body of work concerning this. In any case, for the purposes of this discussion, we consider observation with our eyes to be directly empirical.

Yeah, that seems to be my point, though i don't quite understand that philosophical jargon .

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 07:05:57 PM

I have to disagree that it's "intuitive" that the earth is flat.

Why?

We both look out from our windows.  We both see what appears to be a flat earth extending for 100 metres, or maybe 10km.

Your intuition tells you that the earth is flat.  End of story.

Initially, my intuition tells me the earth is flat.  Logic then tells me there could be an alternative to what I believe intuitively.  I investigate further, and discover that there is an alternative—a spherical earth.  I then check for the scientific evidence that points to the shape of the earth—be it flat or round.

I discover tonnes of evidence for a spherical earth, but absolutely none for a flat earth.

I therefore conclude my intuition was incorrect, and the earth is in fact spherical.

—Intuition can be described in one way as "knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception"  and I think the flat earthers' "looking out their window" fits this definition.

So you meant to say you agree that it's intuitive that the Earth is flat?

So you meant to say you agree that it's intuitive that the Earth is flat?

Nope.  That's why I prefaced it with the word "initially".  My point being that many flat earthers trust their intuition absolutely, and consider intuition to be scientifically sound.  Round earthers don't trust their intuition unequivocally.

And that's why flat earthers are so often ultimately wrong with conclusions drawn solely from their observations of the real world.