What do RE and FE agree on?

Everyone always argues what RE and FE disagree on.   Is there anything that both sides can agree on?

Oh sure. We all agree that a good to-scale flat map would be a wonderfully useful thing for everybody.

That Were-penguins is an awesome game, you should play.

Things generally have a tendency to fall down when dropped.

It looks flat.

Many people on both sides of the matter like peanut butter. Those that don't, are wrong.

Many people on both sides of the matter like peanut butter. Those that don't, are wrong.

Good to see you making sense!

We both agree that as much truth as one can be had can be discerned through experience.

It looks flat.

Full marks to the angel with a halo!

It looks flat.

Actually, yeah, I think we all agree that 99% of the time in our daily lives it looks flat.
When we start pulling out the theodolite, water level, and straight edge, then things may get rather interesting. But definitely in our work-a-day lives it does look flat.

I disagree.
It doesn't look flat in the slightest.
At the small scale there are plenty of variations with hills and mountains and buildings.
Far too much to consider it as flat.

What I would agree with is that at that level you will not see the curvature of Earth.

I disagree.
It doesn't look flat in the slightest.
At the small scale there are plenty of variations with hills and mountains and buildings.
Far too much to consider it as flat.

What I would agree with is that at that level you will not see the curvature of Earth.

Well, if you don't see curvature most of the time, then how can you not say that it looks flat most of the time?
But ultimately we agree; in the daily lives for most people, it does look flat. No curve is readily observed.

Nor would it be, on a curved earth:
Even a mountain 75 miles away is only 3750 feet lower than it should be. Nobody's going to notice that. At a hundred miles it's almost 6700 feet lower, but that's about the limit to see a mountain anyway due to haze.
So people aren't going to notice without using a water level or a theodolite.

And the curve of the horizon? Again, it's such a small curve, most people aren't going to notice that it's not a straight line when they are peering out a little airplane window.

And the dip of the horizon? Again, a few degrees down even at 5000 feet elevation. Unless you take a water level, most people will feel like the horizon rises to eyelevel.

Now.. Take a water level or a theodolite and start measuring and a whole new globe opens up to you.
Check that horizon with  a straight edge, and explore new worlds.

That's all I'm saying.

It doesn't look flat though, does it?

Sure, on land it can be hard to tell because of all the bumps and stuff, but at sea it visibly curves away in all directions. How is that flat?

It doesn't look flat though, does it?

Sure, on land it can be hard to tell because of all the bumps and stuff, but at sea it visibly curves away in all directions. How is that flat?

Sorry to disagree but from near sea-level (here about 2 m above) in the transverse direction the horizon is so close to straight that you could ignore any curve:

And that photo was with a good camera and normal, 50 mm equiv, lens.

So it looks flat . . . . but:

We both agree that as much truth as one can be had can be discerned through experience.

I may have misunderstood this, but based on what I think it means, then no, I don't agree with this.

By "we", I'm assuming you mean the RE and the FE communities.

By "experience", I'm assuming you mean personal experience.

There are a lot of things I accept as truth without personal experience. I believe Japan exists although I've never been there. I believe we went to the moon in '69.

If there's enough supporting evidence for something from sources I find credible, then I'm normally a believer. If the evidence base shifts or sources are convincingly discredited then I shrug my shoulders and change my opinion.

We both agree that as much truth as one can be had can be discerned through experience.

Many more truths can be had than simply those which can be experienced. For example, we can't experience radio waves, building the pyramids of Egypt, geometry, or what another person is feeling. Nonetheless, these truths are evident.

Quote from: John Davis on March 11, 2019, 05:47:08 PM

We both agree that as much truth as one can be had can be discerned through experience.

Many more truths can be had than simply those which can be experienced. For example, we can't experience radio waves, building the pyramids of Egypt, geometry, or what another person is feeling. Nonetheless, these truths are evident.

I disagree; the only way we know anything - whether its about radio or history or geometry is through sense experience. That and mysticism.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on March 12, 2019, 12:04:38 AM

It doesn't look flat though, does it?

Sure, on land it can be hard to tell because of all the bumps and stuff, but at sea it visibly curves away in all directions. How is that flat?

Sorry to disagree but from near sea-level (here about 2 m above) in the transverse direction the horizon is so close to straight that you could ignore any curve:

And that photo was with a good camera and normal, 50 mm equiv, lens.

So it looks flat . . . . but:

I wasn't referring to a curving horizon, but the fact that there is a horizon! The transverse curvature is imperceptible, of course, but the longitudinal curvature is plain to see!

I think we can all agree that ketchup is the best vegetable.

Sure, some may come here to argue that tomatoes are fruits but then they obviously aren't really paying attention to what I actually wrote. Others may posit that some other veggie is better, but there are loonies on both sides of any argument.

Well, if you don't see curvature most of the time, then how can you not say that it looks flat most of the time?
But ultimately we agree; in the daily lives for most people, it does look flat. No curve is readily observed.

I don't see the large scale curvature of Earth. I see the irregularities of Earth, which is still not flat.

But I do agree that no curve is easily observed without instruments (but the results of it sure are), I also think no large expanse of flatness is readily observed.

I disagree; the only way we know anything - whether its about radio or history or geometry is through sense experience. That and mysticism.

Well sure, so long as you classify learning from others with your eyes (as in reading) or with your ears (as in listening about something done by someone elsewhere) as being through "sense experience".  But not through mysticism, or from ghosts or dreams or your imagination.

Quote from: John Davis on March 12, 2019, 11:40:51 AM

I disagree; the only way we know anything - whether its about radio or history or geometry is through sense experience. That and mysticism.

Well sure, so long as you classify learning from others with your eyes (as in reading) or with your ears (as in listening about something done by someone elsewhere) as being through "sense experience".  But not through mysticism, or from ghosts or dreams or your imagination.

How do you explain the thousands of advances in engineering and technology due to mysticism?

For example, Tesla's invention of the ac motor while hallucinating a burning wheel in the park; Roger Penrose visiting a 'purely mathematical realm' to gain insight on his mathematics; Thomas Crick discovering the structure of DNA on acid.

How do you explain the thousands of advances in engineering and technology due to mysticism?

For example, Tesla's invention of the ac motor while hallucinating a burning wheel in the park; Roger Penrose visiting a 'purely mathematical realm' to gain insight on his mathematics; Thomas Crick discovering the structure of DNA on acid.

Their mind projecting subconscious thoughts to their conscious.
No mysticism required.

Quote from: John Davis on March 12, 2019, 03:17:28 PM

How do you explain the thousands of advances in engineering and technology due to mysticism?

For example, Tesla's invention of the ac motor while hallucinating a burning wheel in the park; Roger Penrose visiting a 'purely mathematical realm' to gain insight on his mathematics; Thomas Crick discovering the structure of DNA on acid.

Their mind projecting subconscious thoughts to their conscious.
No mysticism required.

I imagine it depends greatly on how you define mystical experiences. I go with William James' definition:

1. Ineffable
2. Noetic
3. Transient
4. Passive


I would say that these examples (and many many others) fit that definition.

Use whatever definition you want.  Mysticism does not produce knowledge any more than evidence-free imagination (UA, flat earth, and plastic domes) does.

All I know is that Doc Ellis dropped a pre-game tab of Orange Sunshine on his tongue and went on to throw a no-hitter against the Padres in 1970. Strokes of brilliance come in many flavors and under many guises.

Everyone always argues what RE and FE disagree on.   Is there anything that both sides can agree on?

Lasagna

Yeah, you say that but I do vegetarian Lasagna, which is better than Lasagna with corpse in it!

That's fine if you prefer compost.

It's still lasagna.   

Yeah, you say that but I do vegetarian Lasagna, which is better than Lasagna with corpse in it!

Lasagne with corpses in it taste much better.
I guess it is just the delicious taste of indirect murder. So nice.