Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth

  • 95 Replies
  • 10970 Views
?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2016, 10:46:58 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.
Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.

Just because you have been told to look at one thing, and been told that thing must mean the Earth is round, doesn't mean you haven't been lied to.
If the scientific community is so open and honest, why do they laugh at and refuse to honestly consider or develop a competing FE model?

Science did have a flat earth model.  It even had the Earth at the center of the universe.

The problem was that model consistently failed to answer things like retrograde motion of planets, tides, why the Earth is flat when every other planet is not, weather and current patterns, seeing different stars depending on where the observer was, sunsets/rises, eclipses, lunar phases, ships appearing to sink into the horizon, seeing further from higher, etc.

The reality nobody in mainstream science is out to prove the shape of the Earth.  The most that is done now is just refining measurements.

As for science unwilling to adapt and except something that proves currently held beliefs wrong history demonstrates otherwise.  For an example look up the history of the study of the nature of light. Also look up things that were discarded that came from people like Newton and Galileo. 

You also demonstrate a lack of understanding what happens in the scientific community.  Scientist try to prove others wrong rather frequently. 

Models from one field get used in other fields.  Errors would start resonating through many different fields if the Earth was really flat.  I posted a published paper here in the past.  It was scientist looking for an error in predictions of less than 5 mm.  The models they were using in their work involved tectonics, earth tide, tidal loading, GPS error, tides, gravity and some I can not think of right now.  All assuming the Earth is round.  When put together the error was less than 5 mm just for a certain part of the world. 

Do you really think the error would be less than 5 mm if all the models used assumed around Earth and it is really flat?

The reality the errors would not only effect people studying the Earth, it would cause problems with things like navigation and communications.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2016, 10:49:11 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.
Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.
Just because you have been told to look at one thing, and been told that thing must mean the Earth is round, doesn't mean you haven't been lied to.
If the scientific community is so open and honest, why do they laugh at and refuse to honestly consider or develop a competing FE model?
Because THERE IS NO SINGLE FE MODEL and CAN NOT BE.

On this forum, pretty much everyone debating has their own model. Which one do you want REers to "honestly consider"?

You CAN NOT have a "competing FE model" because the SKY is incorrect.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66454.msg1776164#msg1776164)

Then there are the Earth problems - why there hasn't been a FE map for THOUSANDS of years:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

You can, and most threads here do, argue "**IF** a FE model EXISTED, what would UA/denpressure be like? What would the "dome"/"edge" be like? What would the horizon look like/from what altitude? etc." But there is no single model, just ad hoc explanations that (1) don't match the sky/heavens and (2) cause conflicting/contradictory problems with other ad hoc explanations and (3) most cause more problems than they sort-of solve and (4) are untestable/fantasy explanations.

To make a model work, at the VERY LEAST, it has to have people living on BOTH sides (so you have a SINGLE POINT S.POLE under the S. Celestial Pole). THAT has to be the VERY MINIMUM for a model to be even viable. I presented such a model here.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.0)

Of course you have to assume 2 MAJOR things exist. (1) The atmosphere/world/your brain has to process FE sensory inputs and convert them into a spherical Earth and (2) you need a instantaneous teleportation wall around the equator. If you look a JRoweSkeptic's Dual Earth model (it has major problems), that is EXACTLY what his model uses (Aether for the warping and instantaneous travel between disks via zero concentration Aether). The magical mythical Aether does it all with several ad hoc contradictory properties and no evidence.

I am here for discussion. If you're only here to shout, I would kindly ask you to not engage with those of us who are interested in science.
You are the one who claims science considers new ideas. Do you believe it does so by mockery and caps lock and a poorly restrained temper?
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2016, 10:51:21 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.
Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.

Just because you have been told to look at one thing, and been told that thing must mean the Earth is round, doesn't mean you haven't been lied to.
If the scientific community is so open and honest, why do they laugh at and refuse to honestly consider or develop a competing FE model?

Science did have a flat earth model.  It even had the Earth at the center of the universe.

The problem was that model consistently failed to answer things like retrograde motion of planets, tides, why the Earth is flat when every other planet is not, weather and current patterns, seeing different stars depending on where the observer was, sunsets/rises, eclipses, lunar phases, ships appearing to sink into the horizon, seeing further from higher, etc.

The reality nobody in mainstream science is out to prove the shape of the Earth.  The most that is done now is just refining measurements.

As for science unwilling to adapt and except something that proves currently held beliefs wrong history demonstrates otherwise.  For an example look up the history of the study of the nature of light. Also look up things that were discarded that came from people like Newton and Galileo. 

You also demonstrate a lack of understanding what happens in the scientific community.  Scientist try to prove others wrong rather frequently. 

Models from one field get used in other fields.  Errors would start resonating through many different fields if the Earth was really flat.  I posted a published paper here in the past.  It was scientist looking for an error in predictions of less than 5 mm.  The models they were using in their work involved tectonics, earth tide, tidal loading, GPS error, tides, gravity and some I can not think of right now.  All assuming the Earth is round.  When put together the error was less than 5 mm just for a certain part of the world. 

Do you really think the error would be less than 5 mm if all the models used assumed around Earth and it is really flat?

The reality the errors would not only effect people studying the Earth, it would cause problems with things like navigation and communications.

The universe is not simple. People rejected FE centuries ago because they looked for easy answers. As humanity evolved to understand more complex ideas, it had evolved to the point it was too set in its ideas to rethink such things as the shape of the Earth. You said as much: they're not looking at that question.
If you proposed Einstein's theory of relativity before the time of Newton, how do you believe people would react?
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2016, 10:54:04 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?

I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.

Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.

My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2016, 10:58:05 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2016, 11:05:19 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

Do you want to discuss Galileo? Who was under house arrest for years because of his scientific discoveries? How about if Einstein had kept shut about his work with Physics he might not have come to Hitler's attention? You are ignoring the fact that there has always been and will always be scientists willing to go against the norm, against "them", willing to put their reputations on the line for the sake of a discovery. I also notice you conveniently ignored the whole "There's been centuries of evidence supporting spherical earth and disproving a flat one."

Are you missing the other people I mentioned? Like scientists who would probably notice that things don't add up? Pilots who are flying on the edge of "known space" and say "hey there's more stuff over there!". Astronauts who have seen the curvature of earth? Its not shutting up workers, its shutting up hundreds of people outside of the "unknown areas".
You just gave examples of scientists who people actively attempted to make recant. Are you really going to claim science is such an open institution? There are people today who happily put their reputations on the line and defend a flat Earth, why are they lunatics rather than Galileos and Einsteins? Are you listening to yourself?
There have not been centuries of evidence that do what you claim. How would you have be respond? You did not give even an example of such evidence, you just claimed that it existed as though tradition was an argument. In actual fact, there is centuries of development based upon the supposition of a round Earth and the falseness of a flat Earth.
You mentioned no other people than the workers. This is a matter of record. if you wish to improve your argument, do so, but don't try to rewrite history. We have already discussed people who notice things that do not add up. I have no idea how you believe pilots would fly on the edge of known space: do you think they'd expect to find an edge on a sphere? Astronauts would be self-selected.

Galileo was pressured by the Catholic church to recant, that's religion pressuring science, not science vs. science. Einstein had a conflict with Hitler and the Nazi regime, which is a political organization.


Frankly, your entire second section is very muddling. I am not going to go and list the mountain of evidence, but a few simple ones. No one has noticed any real concrete evidence of flat earth besides "it looks flat", every other observed planet is spherical, the curvature can be seen, the sun disappears behind a horizon, ships and planes have circumnavigated the globe.

It doesn't matter what pilots "expect", there are flights that go around the world, let me guess these are controlled so only "special elite" pilots are used to hide the fact that it is flat?

There is no real point about arguing about this because when it comes right down to it, you are convinced that there is some evil elite group hiding the information, anything I present is "lies they are using" and any eye witness account are either specially selected people who are covering up or since they aren't your first hand account, are not valid.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2016, 11:10:37 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2016, 11:13:17 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

Do you want to discuss Galileo? Who was under house arrest for years because of his scientific discoveries? How about if Einstein had kept shut about his work with Physics he might not have come to Hitler's attention? You are ignoring the fact that there has always been and will always be scientists willing to go against the norm, against "them", willing to put their reputations on the line for the sake of a discovery. I also notice you conveniently ignored the whole "There's been centuries of evidence supporting spherical earth and disproving a flat one."

Are you missing the other people I mentioned? Like scientists who would probably notice that things don't add up? Pilots who are flying on the edge of "known space" and say "hey there's more stuff over there!". Astronauts who have seen the curvature of earth? Its not shutting up workers, its shutting up hundreds of people outside of the "unknown areas".
You just gave examples of scientists who people actively attempted to make recant. Are you really going to claim science is such an open institution? There are people today who happily put their reputations on the line and defend a flat Earth, why are they lunatics rather than Galileos and Einsteins? Are you listening to yourself?
There have not been centuries of evidence that do what you claim. How would you have be respond? You did not give even an example of such evidence, you just claimed that it existed as though tradition was an argument. In actual fact, there is centuries of development based upon the supposition of a round Earth and the falseness of a flat Earth.
You mentioned no other people than the workers. This is a matter of record. if you wish to improve your argument, do so, but don't try to rewrite history. We have already discussed people who notice things that do not add up. I have no idea how you believe pilots would fly on the edge of known space: do you think they'd expect to find an edge on a sphere? Astronauts would be self-selected.

Galileo was pressured by the Catholic church to recant, that's religion pressuring science, not science vs. science. Einstein had a conflict with Hitler and the Nazi regime, which is a political organization.


Frankly, your entire second section is very muddling. I am not going to go and list the mountain of evidence, but a few simple ones. No one has noticed any real concrete evidence of flat earth besides "it looks flat", every other observed planet is spherical, the curvature can be seen, the sun disappears behind a horizon, ships and planes have circumnavigated the globe.

It doesn't matter what pilots "expect", there are flights that go around the world, let me guess these are controlled so only "special elite" pilots are used to hide the fact that it is flat?

There is no real point about arguing about this because when it comes right down to it, you are convinced that there is some evil elite group hiding the information, anything I present is "lies they are using" and any eye witness account are either specially selected people who are covering up or since they aren't your first hand account, are not valid.
The Church was the scientific institution of the time. Father and Reverend were their equivalents of doctor and professor. However, even Einstein demonstrates that scientists can be put under pressure. As welcomed as he might be by the scientific institution of your ideals, the world he interacted with had a very clear view.
People have noted plenty of evidence of a flat Earth. look over this forum and all the various youtube channels. it is exclusively round earthers who reduce this mountain to 'it looks flat.' Beyond that, I don't know how you expect to gather the shape of the Earth by looking at the shape of something completely different. Curvature can't be seen, the Sun would disappear beyond the horizon on any surface, and as for ships and planes, why wouldn't they be able to go in a circle?
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #38 on: June 29, 2016, 11:17:20 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that simply having a contradictory model of the earth is "evidence." It's merely another theory of the earth's structure that's consistent in itself. It is not, however, consistent with pre-existing data that I've gathered from my senses. Therefore I am not rationally obligated to accept it; in fact I could make the case that I am rationally obligated to reject it.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #39 on: June 29, 2016, 11:26:23 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?
I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.

Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.

My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.
The next question becomes what "aids" do you consider viable?

Since it is unlikely you will actually see cells in your body without a microscope, do you believe your eyes when looking through one? What about an electron microscope (pictures on a screen)?

Going the other way, do you believe what you see with a telescope? A telescope with CCD cameras/computers attached?

What about cameras and pictures you take? Where do you draw the line when others take them? Why?

For me, I have done amateur astronomy with several telescopes, binoculars and cameras. As my views/pics look very much like others in magazines and on-line, I have little doubt of their validity (i.e. I have somewhat of a measure of what "fake" may be). Sure, there are corrected pictures (that unless explicitly trying to force something, are usually OK because they are making pictures look as we would expect them - increased contrast, saturation, gamma correction, seams disappearing, etc.) and "Photoshopped"/"fake" pictures. But... not all pictures are "fake" and even enhanced ones are not necessarily fake (like the photos you take through your digital camera). So just because NASA or someone corrects images or even produces "fake" ones (sometimes for presentations or PR/advertising) that does not mean it does it to ALL pics. Also, unless you know what the pics are supposed to look like, you can't cry "fake" because they are not what you expect.

Also, EVERYONE has different experiences with what they used their senses for. So although YOU may not have seen, smelled, tasted, touched, heard something, some, perhaps many other people have.

People on this forum love to tell REers they have been lied to and indoctrinated - as if they haven't been by FEers. This is very insulting (I think it is a debate tactic to get a rise out of people - pathetic really). Many of the people here have tested stuff (like me and amateur astronomy). Sorry, but the things I have seen and measured independently (for me) verify my RE concept. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me even begin to take the FE concept seriously. Based on the stuff presented in this forum, I seriously doubt anyone in the scientific community would even seriously look at a FE - not because of indoctrination, but because there is literally nothing here. What would you write a scientific paper on? Sandokhan's copy/paste? Antarctica "wall" conspiracy? A flat horizon? John Davis' infinite plane with domes on it? ... to make it perfectly simple - no map, no model.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #40 on: June 29, 2016, 11:28:08 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that simply having a contradictory model of the earth is "evidence." It's merely another theory of the earth's structure that's consistent in itself. It is not, however, consistent with pre-existing data that I've gathered from my senses. Therefore I am not rationally obligated to accept it; in fact I could make the case that I am rationally obligated to reject it.

http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

There you go, I know for a fact one of them you'll ignore because its a picture from space, but still. They are all things that are pretty common sense, simple to grasp and can be done yourself.

Again, the issue with using your senses as a criteria for "this has to be true" is that they can be fooled, flawed or otherwise invalid. That is why evidence and experiments support observations gained with their senses. So I challenge you to give me one valid experiment or data set supporting a flat earth.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #41 on: June 29, 2016, 11:36:21 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?
I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.

Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.

My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.
The next question becomes what "aids" do you consider viable?

Since it is unlikely you will actually see cells in your body without a microscope, do you believe your eyes when looking through one? What about an electron microscope (pictures on a screen)?

Going the other way, do you believe what you see with a telescope? A telescope with CCD cameras/computers attached?

What about cameras and pictures you take? Where do you draw the line when others take them? Why?

For me, I have done amateur astronomy with several telescopes, binoculars and cameras. As my views/pics look very much like others in magazines and on-line, I have little doubt of their validity (i.e. I have somewhat of a measure of what "fake" may be). Sure, there are corrected pictures (that unless explicitly trying to force something, are usually OK because they are making pictures look as we would expect them - increased contrast, saturation, gamma correction, seams disappearing, etc.) and "Photoshopped"/"fake" pictures. But... not all pictures are "fake" and even enhanced ones are not necessarily fake (like the photos you take through your digital camera). So just because NASA or someone corrects images or even produces "fake" ones (sometimes for presentations or PR/advertising) that does not mean it does it to ALL pics. Also, unless you know what the pics are supposed to look like, you can't cry "fake" because they are not what you expect.

Also, EVERYONE has different experiences with what they used their senses for. So although YOU may not have seen, smelled, tasted, touched, heard something, some, perhaps many other people have.

People on this forum love to tell REers they have been lied to and indoctrinated - as if they haven't been by FEers. This is very insulting (I think it is a debate tactic to get a rise out of people - pathetic really). Many of the people here have tested stuff (like me and amateur astronomy). Sorry, but the things I have seen and measured independently (for me) verify my RE concept. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me even begin to take the FE concept seriously. Based on the stuff presented in this forum, I seriously doubt anyone in the scientific community would even seriously look at a FE - not because of indoctrination, but because there is literally nothing here. What would you write a scientific paper on? Sandokhan's copy/paste? Antarctica "wall" conspiracy? A flat horizon? John Davis' infinite plane with domes on it? ... to make it perfectly simple - no map, no model.

Hey Jadynn. These questions are relatively easy to answer within the framework I've been proposing. Like I've said, I only find additional observations to be unpersuasive if it contradicts a prior observation that is immediately verifiable.

As such, the variety of experiences that other people have had are compatible with my theory of perception and epistemology. I welcome additional data about the world -- for instance, photographs of distant lands, journal entries of times long past, or other revelations concerning things which are not immediately present to my senses. I welcome these because, although you insist that my epistemology is inconsistent, they are not contradictory with what I've already seen. The idea that Africa exists on the other side of the ocean does not contradict what I've seen on this side... etc.

On the other hand, the earth's alleged rotundity does conflict with what I've already seen -- namely, its flatness. Africa can exist while I do not see it, but the earth cannot be round while I see it to be flat.

I'm not accusing you of indoctrination, and I'm not sure where that came from.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2016, 11:38:00 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that simply having a contradictory model of the earth is "evidence." It's merely another theory of the earth's structure that's consistent in itself. It is not, however, consistent with pre-existing data that I've gathered from my senses. Therefore I am not rationally obligated to accept it; in fact I could make the case that I am rationally obligated to reject it.

http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

There you go, I know for a fact one of them you'll ignore because its a picture from space, but still. They are all things that are pretty common sense, simple to grasp and can be done yourself.

Again, the issue with using your senses as a criteria for "this has to be true" is that they can be fooled, flawed or otherwise invalid. That is why evidence and experiments support observations gained with their senses. So I challenge you to give me one valid experiment or data set supporting a flat earth.

I'd point you in the direction of the many articles and other entries that have been done by flat earth theorists. They are available on this website, and many of them are objections to the supposed proofs above.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2016, 11:48:51 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that simply having a contradictory model of the earth is "evidence." It's merely another theory of the earth's structure that's consistent in itself. It is not, however, consistent with pre-existing data that I've gathered from my senses. Therefore I am not rationally obligated to accept it; in fact I could make the case that I am rationally obligated to reject it.

http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

There you go, I know for a fact one of them you'll ignore because its a picture from space, but still. They are all things that are pretty common sense, simple to grasp and can be done yourself.

Again, the issue with using your senses as a criteria for "this has to be true" is that they can be fooled, flawed or otherwise invalid. That is why evidence and experiments support observations gained with their senses. So I challenge you to give me one valid experiment or data set supporting a flat earth.

I'd point you in the direction of the many articles and other entries that have been done by flat earth theorists. They are available on this website, and many of them are objections to the supposed proofs above.

Okay, how about something not done on a forum with purely theoretical ideas and no real first hand experimentation beyond the observation the world is flat? As in, an experiment done in the real world that supports the flat earth model. That is how a theory is accepted as valid, when it is supported by evidence. Globe models are supported by the fact that other planets are spherical and therefore it is valid to assume that Earth would be as well.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2016, 11:56:32 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that simply having a contradictory model of the earth is "evidence." It's merely another theory of the earth's structure that's consistent in itself. It is not, however, consistent with pre-existing data that I've gathered from my senses. Therefore I am not rationally obligated to accept it; in fact I could make the case that I am rationally obligated to reject it.

http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

There you go, I know for a fact one of them you'll ignore because its a picture from space, but still. They are all things that are pretty common sense, simple to grasp and can be done yourself.

Again, the issue with using your senses as a criteria for "this has to be true" is that they can be fooled, flawed or otherwise invalid. That is why evidence and experiments support observations gained with their senses. So I challenge you to give me one valid experiment or data set supporting a flat earth.

I'd point you in the direction of the many articles and other entries that have been done by flat earth theorists. They are available on this website, and many of them are objections to the supposed proofs above.

Okay, how about something not done on a forum with purely theoretical ideas and no real first hand experimentation beyond the observation the world is flat? As in, an experiment done in the real world that supports the flat earth model. That is how a theory is accepted as valid, when it is supported by evidence. Globe models are supported by the fact that other planets are spherical and therefore it is valid to assume that Earth would be as well.

The Bedford Level experiment is probably the best example of a well-executed experiment which uses modern scientific methodology and which points to the flat earth model. On these forums, I generally appeal to philosophical justifications, but I'm aware of the rigorous scientific work done on the subject.

Your argument above is an invalid induction if I've ever seen one. How can you prove that the Earth is even in the same category of celestial bodies (planets), without circularly referencing your conclusion (that the Earth is round) in support?

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2016, 12:01:03 PM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?
I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.

Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.

My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.
The next question becomes what "aids" do you consider viable?

Since it is unlikely you will actually see cells in your body without a microscope, do you believe your eyes when looking through one? What about an electron microscope (pictures on a screen)?

Going the other way, do you believe what you see with a telescope? A telescope with CCD cameras/computers attached?

What about cameras and pictures you take? Where do you draw the line when others take them? Why?

For me, I have done amateur astronomy with several telescopes, binoculars and cameras. As my views/pics look very much like others in magazines and on-line, I have little doubt of their validity (i.e. I have somewhat of a measure of what "fake" may be). Sure, there are corrected pictures (that unless explicitly trying to force something, are usually OK because they are making pictures look as we would expect them - increased contrast, saturation, gamma correction, seams disappearing, etc.) and "Photoshopped"/"fake" pictures. But... not all pictures are "fake" and even enhanced ones are not necessarily fake (like the photos you take through your digital camera). So just because NASA or someone corrects images or even produces "fake" ones (sometimes for presentations or PR/advertising) that does not mean it does it to ALL pics. Also, unless you know what the pics are supposed to look like, you can't cry "fake" because they are not what you expect.

Also, EVERYONE has different experiences with what they used their senses for. So although YOU may not have seen, smelled, tasted, touched, heard something, some, perhaps many other people have.

People on this forum love to tell REers they have been lied to and indoctrinated - as if they haven't been by FEers. This is very insulting (I think it is a debate tactic to get a rise out of people - pathetic really). Many of the people here have tested stuff (like me and amateur astronomy). Sorry, but the things I have seen and measured independently (for me) verify my RE concept. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me even begin to take the FE concept seriously. Based on the stuff presented in this forum, I seriously doubt anyone in the scientific community would even seriously look at a FE - not because of indoctrination, but because there is literally nothing here. What would you write a scientific paper on? Sandokhan's copy/paste? Antarctica "wall" conspiracy? A flat horizon? John Davis' infinite plane with domes on it? ... to make it perfectly simple - no map, no model.

Hey Jadynn. These questions are relatively easy to answer within the framework I've been proposing. Like I've said, I only find additional observations to be unpersuasive if it contradicts a prior observation that is immediately verifiable.

As such, the variety of experiences that other people have had are compatible with my theory of perception and epistemology. I welcome additional data about the world -- for instance, photographs of distant lands, journal entries of times long past, or other revelations concerning things which are not immediately present to my senses. I welcome these because, although you insist that my epistemology is inconsistent, they are not contradictory with what I've already seen. The idea that Africa exists on the other side of the ocean does not contradict what I've seen on this side... etc.

On the other hand, the earth's alleged rotundity does conflict with what I've already seen -- namely, its flatness. Africa can exist while I do not see it, but the earth cannot be round while I see it to be flat.

I'm not accusing you of indoctrination, and I'm not sure where that came from.
I thought I wrote the following in this thread so I will just link it to a different thread. This should conflict with what is seen/photographed south of the equator (the SCP part) on a FE vs RE:

(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67201.msg1794676#msg1794676)
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2016, 12:11:37 PM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

You missed my distinction, so I'll repeat it. In the second example you just gave, you have no reason to reject wavelengths outside of light, because your sensory data isn't necessarily telling you that there is no light outside your perception. That does not contradict your prior observation of a different wavelength of light. In the first example, you do have a reason to reject the earth's rotundity, because it does contradict your prior observation of the earth's geometric shape.

Your prior observation of earth being flat is formulated by what, pictures showing it is flat and your view from a low point on the ground? Its the height of arrogance, stating that "my eyes say this and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise!", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that simply having a contradictory model of the earth is "evidence." It's merely another theory of the earth's structure that's consistent in itself. It is not, however, consistent with pre-existing data that I've gathered from my senses. Therefore I am not rationally obligated to accept it; in fact I could make the case that I am rationally obligated to reject it.

http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

There you go, I know for a fact one of them you'll ignore because its a picture from space, but still. They are all things that are pretty common sense, simple to grasp and can be done yourself.

Again, the issue with using your senses as a criteria for "this has to be true" is that they can be fooled, flawed or otherwise invalid. That is why evidence and experiments support observations gained with their senses. So I challenge you to give me one valid experiment or data set supporting a flat earth.

I'd point you in the direction of the many articles and other entries that have been done by flat earth theorists. They are available on this website, and many of them are objections to the supposed proofs above.

Okay, how about something not done on a forum with purely theoretical ideas and no real first hand experimentation beyond the observation the world is flat? As in, an experiment done in the real world that supports the flat earth model. That is how a theory is accepted as valid, when it is supported by evidence. Globe models are supported by the fact that other planets are spherical and therefore it is valid to assume that Earth would be as well.

The Bedford Level experiment is probably the best example of a well-executed experiment which uses modern scientific methodology and which points to the flat earth model. On these forums, I generally appeal to philosophical justifications, but I'm aware of the rigorous scientific work done on the subject.

Your argument above is an invalid induction if I've ever seen one. How can you prove that the Earth is even in the same category of celestial bodies (planets), without circularly referencing your conclusion (that the Earth is round) in support?

The Bedford Level experiment was a poorly formulated experiment which failed to take refraction into account and which used a single experiment as proof of a conclusion, which any scientist worth his salt will tell you is poor protocol at best. Results aren't important, consistent results are the true test for validity.

Geology has an assumption called uniformitarianism, which is that the same processes and natural events have always occurred and will always occur the same everywhere. Speed of light is the speed of light, whether here or in Andromeda. Gravity is gravity and has the same effect, although how much acceleration due to gravity can change. Planets are planets, and if an object has the same criteria as a planet (orbits a star, isn't so massive to undergo fusion and doesn't have any debris besides satellites floating around it) it is a spherical planet. If Earth has those criteria and all other objects that fit that criteria are spheres due to Gravity crushing it into a sphere, why should Earth be the special one to not do that?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 12:13:12 PM by Havoc101 »

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2016, 12:15:55 PM »
So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.

You are mixing up the assumptions! You aren't talking about a single hypothesis, except the earth is flat. That is the starting hypothesis, but the rest are parts of different theories of flatness.

"Gravity" in the Universal Accelerator theory is caused by the constant upward acceleration of the earth, which is a disk. In this theory gravity, as a force, does not exist.

Some FE are creationists, but many are not. Obviously creationists believe the earth was created by a creator. Even RE creationists believe this.

Infinite plane theory is completely different from UA theory. Search the forum for "infinite plane" there are many threads about it.

The Ice Wall is part of the UA theory. If it exists, it would have to be huge, and probably impossible to reach.

People are usually surprised that there are so many different ways of thinking about FE. You are used to the way mainstream science works, where there is broad consensus on things and outside the box thinking is squashed.

Most half-sane flat earthers admit they are creationists. It's insane to believe the FE model could be the result of a completely "natural" procedure.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2016, 12:19:31 PM »
So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.
It's all assumptions until concrete proof can be had. The real issue is in being allowed to show what concrete proof is and having it accepted.
An instance is the Bedford level experiment. It should constitute concrete proof but it's not allowed. Why?
The answer is simple. Because mainstream supposed science does not allow this type of evidence. It's frowned upon and people are ridiculed by the brainwashed masses, instigated by those higher up.


Uh no. It's just because the Bedford level experiment was completely flawed.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2016, 12:22:03 PM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Possibly. Just like billions of other people who have been in the southern hemisphere.

By the way, our senses have been proven to be inaccurate countless times.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2016, 12:25:33 PM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

What about this? http://psylux.psych.tu-dresden.de/i1/kaw/diverses%20Material/www.illusionworks.com/assets/images/Ames.jpg

The curvature of earth doesn't conflict with what you see either. Just like you shouldn't be able to see infrared, you shouldn't be able to see the curvature while standing on the surface of the earth. So it's a bit of a useless argument here.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2016, 12:29:58 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Sure. They can mine all day long using... What workers? Anyway, they can mine all day long, and then they can do... What exactly with what they have mined? Ok, I'm sure they will find something, and it's definitely good enough to justify the immense costs of hiding the conspiracy!!! Right?
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2016, 12:33:21 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

You are the one who seems to think they are exempt from human nature. You seem to think that there's some sort of huge satanic elite that's so vicious, greedy, evil and lacking sympathy that they would do all that! In fact, that's the way it's been for thousands of years! Unless you think that's normal human behavior.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2016, 12:37:36 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Sure. They can mine all day long using... What workers? Anyway, they can mine all day long, and then they can do... What exactly with what they have mined? Ok, I'm sure they will find something, and it's definitely good enough to justify the immense costs of hiding the conspiracy!!! Right?

They can pick people up easily. Hold them permanently in those areas. Breed them... The same things that can be mined in the rest of the world, untapped resources. Look in a history book: there used to be so many references to undiscovered lands. El Dorado, for example: the city of gold. Wealth buys power.
Don't overinflate the costs.
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2016, 12:39:25 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

You are the one who seems to think they are exempt from human nature. You seem to think that there's some sort of huge satanic elite that's so vicious, greedy, evil and lacking sympathy that they would do all that! In fact, that's the way it's been for thousands of years! Unless you think that's normal human behavior.
History teaches us people are capable of terrible things, once they're given a chance at power. All the more so if there are those who view others as a subhuman species, such as the enslavements and genocides of Africans and native Americans. Leave your idealism at the door.
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #55 on: June 29, 2016, 12:43:37 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

You are the one who seems to think they are exempt from human nature. You seem to think that there's some sort of huge satanic elite that's so vicious, greedy, evil and lacking sympathy that they would do all that! In fact, that's the way it's been for thousands of years! Unless you think that's normal human behavior.
History teaches us people are capable of terrible things, once they're given a chance at power. All the more so if there are those who view others as a subhuman species, such as the enslavements and genocides of Africans and native Americans. Leave your idealism at the door.

These people in power generally being an entire government, royal family with the backing of a country or some other large group, not a few Mr. Burns look-alikes. It's not idealism its practicality, and practicality says it is very unlikely a group of evil greed filled super rich monsters have somehow managed to find undiscovered land, hide it from the world at large, mine anything they can find, process these materials, smuggle them back to civilized land and turn a profit off of this.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2016, 12:48:27 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

You are the one who seems to think they are exempt from human nature. You seem to think that there's some sort of huge satanic elite that's so vicious, greedy, evil and lacking sympathy that they would do all that! In fact, that's the way it's been for thousands of years! Unless you think that's normal human behavior.
History teaches us people are capable of terrible things, once they're given a chance at power. All the more so if there are those who view others as a subhuman species, such as the enslavements and genocides of Africans and native Americans. Leave your idealism at the door.

These people in power generally being an entire government, royal family with the backing of a country or some other large group, not a few Mr. Burns look-alikes. It's not idealism its practicality, and practicality says it is very unlikely a group of evil greed filled super rich monsters have somehow managed to find undiscovered land, hide it from the world at large, mine anything they can find, process these materials, smuggle them back to civilized land and turn a profit off of this.

Why would those have to be the people with power?
And why would they need to find hidden land? They were the ones that concealed it. It's not hard to let a civilisation start. We know that sort of thing happens, it's happened in recorded history.
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #57 on: June 29, 2016, 12:54:05 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

You are the one who seems to think they are exempt from human nature. You seem to think that there's some sort of huge satanic elite that's so vicious, greedy, evil and lacking sympathy that they would do all that! In fact, that's the way it's been for thousands of years! Unless you think that's normal human behavior.
History teaches us people are capable of terrible things, once they're given a chance at power. All the more so if there are those who view others as a subhuman species, such as the enslavements and genocides of Africans and native Americans. Leave your idealism at the door.

These people in power generally being an entire government, royal family with the backing of a country or some other large group, not a few Mr. Burns look-alikes. It's not idealism its practicality, and practicality says it is very unlikely a group of evil greed filled super rich monsters have somehow managed to find undiscovered land, hide it from the world at large, mine anything they can find, process these materials, smuggle them back to civilized land and turn a profit off of this.

Why would those have to be the people with power?
And why would they need to find hidden land? They were the ones that concealed it. It's not hard to let a civilisation start. We know that sort of thing happens, it's happened in recorded history.

Concealing the hidden land means what, its been hundreds of years in the planning? That's not unrealistic or anything, totally feasible. And the Mr. Burns thing was a joke FYI, fine then who is it that's hiding this? How many people, what people, who supports them. If you claim there is some group that is doing this, surely there must be some details about them.

Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2016, 12:59:11 PM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

You are the one who seems to think they are exempt from human nature. You seem to think that there's some sort of huge satanic elite that's so vicious, greedy, evil and lacking sympathy that they would do all that! In fact, that's the way it's been for thousands of years! Unless you think that's normal human behavior.
History teaches us people are capable of terrible things, once they're given a chance at power. All the more so if there are those who view others as a subhuman species, such as the enslavements and genocides of Africans and native Americans. Leave your idealism at the door.

These people in power generally being an entire government, royal family with the backing of a country or some other large group, not a few Mr. Burns look-alikes. It's not idealism its practicality, and practicality says it is very unlikely a group of evil greed filled super rich monsters have somehow managed to find undiscovered land, hide it from the world at large, mine anything they can find, process these materials, smuggle them back to civilized land and turn a profit off of this.

Why would those have to be the people with power?
And why would they need to find hidden land? They were the ones that concealed it. It's not hard to let a civilisation start. We know that sort of thing happens, it's happened in recorded history.

Concealing the hidden land means what, its been hundreds of years in the planning? That's not unrealistic or anything, totally feasible. And the Mr. Burns thing was a joke FYI, fine then who is it that's hiding this? How many people, what people, who supports them. If you claim there is some group that is doing this, surely there must be some details about them.

There probably has been a lot of work put into it, yes. Civilisations last centuries. Use the precious metals to pay off a handful of mapmakers: only a handful of people actually mapped the world, the rest copied the existing maps. Stop people looking for the hidden locations, beyond the ice wall and in the southern hemisphere, and it perpetuates itself. Everyone thinks the world is already fully explored.
I can't tell you names, for obvious reasons. I doubt they'd be in the public eye, most might not even be recognisably human. They support themselves, from what they mine using the native populations of the hidden locations. People have known for decades that something else controlled and influenced many worldly governments.
Statement of Belief:
I believe the Earth is flat. I believe we are being lied to. I believe the science we are told concerning light is false. I believe light and heat only exist with the caloric field. I believe there is more to the Earth than we are told.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2016, 01:12:40 PM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Possibly. Just like billions of other people who have been in the southern hemisphere.

By the way, our senses have been proven to be inaccurate countless times.

Sure, granted. But they've always been falsified based on other direct observations of the senses.