The Razor

I know it's all a joke.

It's all about what credibility you can give to scientific observations that you havent observed yourself. (ex. How can you know for sure that the world is a globe if you haven't been in space, yourself, to observe it?)

According to Occam's Razor, logic used by scientists to determine causality:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
or,
The simplest explanation is usually the best.

This works great to explain the everyday observance that the horizon out there on the distance seems flat all around but in order to justify easily observable natural phenomenon that doesnt fit in with the FE theory, you cannot rely on the Razor any more.

Take for example the FE theory's explanation of Lunar Eclipses:

The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.

Much more Easily explained by spheres obscuring light radiating from other spheres.

Other phenomena yet to be reasonably explained by FE Theory:

the "optical illusion" causing sunrises and sunsets.
the Coriolis force
How the atmosphere stays on the Earth

So, in the end, what began as basically a thought experiment about observable evidence has turned into an abberation of pseudoscience.

The simplest explanation is usually the best.[/i]

Somebody go tell those physicists to stop using General Relativity, because Newton's law of gravitation is so much easier to use.

Quote from: "The3dgeLoop"

The simplest explanation is usually the best.[/i]

Somebody go tell those physicists to stop using General Relativity, because Newton's law of gravitation is so much easier to use.

Seems you missed the definition of Occam's Razor,
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Newton's Law wasn't sufficient to explain light bending around massize celestial objects. So, Einstein came up with something better.

You seem to have missed the definition of Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation is usually the best.

1.   habitual or customary: her usual skill.
2.   commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary: the usual January weather.
3.   commonplace; everyday: He says the usual things.
4.   something that is usual: He could expect only the usual.
5.   as usual, in the customary or usual manner: As usual, he forgot my birthday.

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


Which, clearly, is to say that Occam's Razor does not tell us which theory is correct at all, and no scientists would use Occam's Razor as a proof.  Occam's Razor simply tells you which theory is most likely.  It's important to remember that unlikely events still occur, despite Occam's Razor.

So, essentially, Occam's Razor is irrelevant, because we're trying to figure out what the truth is, not what's most likely.

So, essentially, Occam's Razor is irrelevant, because we're trying to figure out what the truth is, not what's most likely.

So if Occam's Razor is irrelevant, and this forum is open to all deliberation as to what causes earth's phenomena, why not just say "God did it" for everything, or better yet, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Fact that Occam's Razor doesnt necessarily point to the correct theory 100% of the time is not whats important. It certainly doesnt mean that it automatically points to FE Theory. The burden of proof is on you to prove that NASA creates holograms, The sun is a variably shaped spotlight, etc.

So if Occam's Razor is irrelevant, and this forum is open to all deliberation as to what causes earth's phenomena, why not just say "God did it" for everything

Because most people here are atheists.

Who said Occam's razor pointed to the FE?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that NASA creates holograms, The sun is a variably shaped spotlight, etc.

If FEers went to the Round Earth Society website with their views, THEN the burden of proof would be on them. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Quote from: "The3dgeLoop"

The burden of proof is on you to prove that NASA creates holograms, The sun is a variably shaped spotlight, etc.

If FEers went to the Round Earth Society website with their views, THEN the burden of proof would be on them. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Imagine if the 9/11 Truth movement used that logic.

 :roll:

Imagine if the 9/11 Truth movement used that logic.

 :roll:

Never heard of them.

Quote from: "The3dgeLoop"

The burden of proof is on you to prove that NASA creates holograms, The sun is a variably shaped spotlight, etc.

If FEers went to the Round Earth Society website with their views, THEN the burden of proof would be on them. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So, If I created a forum that claimed the Moon is made out of cheese, no one would be allowed to make an account and tell me i'm a dumbass? No one would be able to ask me for proof? Just because its my website?

Please Note: By "FE Logic", you can't prove the Moon isnt made of cheese

So, If I created a forum that claimed the Moon is made out of cheese, no one would be allowed to make an account and tell me i'm a dumbass? No one would be able to ask me for proof? Just because its my website?

No, because it would be your forum.

Please Note: By "FE Logic", you can't prove the Moon isnt made of cheese

Maybe it is...

So, If I created a forum that claimed the Moon is made out of cheese, no one would be allowed to make an account and tell me i'm a dumbass? No one would be able to ask me for proof? Just because its my website?

If you gave them the capacity to, then yes they would be able to... but it wouldn't be polite of them.  

Quote from: "The3dgeLoop"

So, If I created a forum that claimed the Moon is made out of cheese, no one would be allowed to make an account and tell me i'm a dumbass? No one would be able to ask me for proof? Just because its my website?

No, because it would be your forum.

So, I'm not allowed to be here arguing for RE?

So, I'm not allowed to be here arguing for RE?

You are because the admins say you can.

So, I'm not allowed to be here arguing for RE?

Sure you are... but no one has to show you proof of anything.

Quote from: "The3dgeLoop"

So, I'm not allowed to be here arguing for RE?

Sure you are... but no one has to show you proof of anything.

Let's learn a little about the scientific method and logical arguments, shall we?

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. These "premises" are the proof of the claim. If there is no proof, you can't claim your hypothesis is, indeed, fact.

I dont think it matters if you're in my house, I'm in your house, We're on the FE forum, or we're on the MoonIsCheese forum, if theres no proof, theres no validity.

Let's learn a little about the scientific method and logical arguments, shall we?

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. These "premises" are the proof of the claim. If there is no proof, you can't claim your hypothesis is, indeed, fact.

I think many FE'ers believe the Michaelson and Morley experiments chose the wrong conclusion: that there is no aether.  One could also conclude that the Earth is stationary in the aether (ether?).

Let's learn a little about the scientific method and logical arguments, shall we?

The FET is not based on the scientific method, it's based on the Zetetic one.

I dont think it matters if you're in my house, I'm in your house, We're on the FE forum, or we're on the MoonIsCheese forum, if theres no proof, theres no validity.

Instead of asking for scientific proof of a flat Earth, try offering Zetetic proof of the round one.

The Scientific Method and the Zetetic Method are two completely different methods of scientific discovery.

They cannot be compared. And the only way to disprove something derived from one method, is to use the same method in which something was discovered.

If I used the scientific method to determine the chemical makeup of the toe jam in Dan Marino's toe's, and someone came along with a completely foreign (I've never heard of the Zetetic Method) way, then the conclusion can only be true for the method used, and is still not valid to argue or disprove the other.

All of science is based upon the scientific method. There is no exception to it. So in order to claim the earth is flat and expect people to believe you, you need to do your findings in the real world according to the scientific method, just as it was done in the real world to prove RE.

Instead of asking for scientific proof of a flat Earth, try offering zetetic proof of the round one.

"Zetetic Proof" is an oxymoron. You hold to a claim that the earth is flat, and fabricate junk science to support your claim.

Most Zetetic claims involve supposed variants in air density or NASA created holograms, creating refractions which cause optical illusions. If I were to make Zetetic proof for RE, it'd go a lot like this:

The Earth is round:
It revolves around the Sun
It rotates, creating day and night
Gravity keeps us on the surface of the earth
A lunar eclipse occurs whenever the Moon passes through some portion of the Earth's shadow

All very simple. Nowhere do i have to claim government conspiracy, holograms, 150 foot ice walls, etc.

All of science is based upon the scientific method. There is no exception to it. So in order to claim the earth is flat and expect people to believe you, you need to do your findings in the real world according to the scientific method, just as it was done in the real world to prove RE.

FE Theory doesnt describe the real world then?

I must have made some grave mistake, I didnt know you were just making up a fantasy land.

By real world I meant the world outside your window and computer monitor.

Figure of speech, FTW.

If I were to make Zetetic proof for RE, it'd go a lot like this:

The Earth is round:
It revolves around the Sun
It rotates, creating day and night
Gravity keeps us on the surface of the earth
A lunar eclipse occurs whenever the Moon passes through some portion of the Earth's shadow

All very simple...

No, it takes a bit more than that:

Zetetic

\Ze*tet"ic\, a. [Gr. ?, fr. ? to seek: cf. F. z['e]t['e]tique.] Seeking; proceeding by inquiry.

Zetetic method (Math.), the method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems. [R.] --Hutton.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_scientific_inquiry

More specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_scientific_inquiry

Im Glad I Found This:

There really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.
sorry.

I'll admit, playing the devil's advocate is fun, but when you're stuck trying to explain eclipses, and the distance between Australia and Chile, you might as well give up.

Like I said, I knew it was all a joke, I was just hoping to find an admission.

Maybe if I can come up with a non-euclidean geometric theory for FE I'll be back, cast on the opposite side of the argument.

Im Glad I Found This:

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

There really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.
sorry.

I'll admit, playing the devil's advocate is fun, but when you're stuck trying to explain eclipses, and the distance between Australia and Chile, you might as well give up.

Like I said, I knew it was all a joke, I was just hoping to find an admission.

Maybe if I can come up with a non-euclidean geometric theory for FE I'll be back, cast on the opposite side of the argument.

I'm glad you found it too.  Someone used the search button!  But don't believe everything you read.  

You should check out the "True Believers" forum if you want to see real FE'res.

Im Glad I Found This:

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

There really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.
sorry.

I'll admit, playing the devil's advocate is fun, but when you're stuck trying to explain eclipses, and the distance between Australia and Chile, you might as well give up.

Like I said, I knew it was all a joke, I was just hoping to find an admission.

Maybe if I can come up with a non-euclidean geometric theory for FE I'll be back, cast on the opposite side of the argument.

The statement you quoted isn't true.

The statement you quoted isn't true.

That's why I told him not to believe everything he reads.  I don't even believe everything I say!

The Zetetic method has it's advantages over the Scientific Method. I feel that with the Scientific Method, one is forced to make a lot of assumptions about the world.

Quote from: "Rick_James"

The statement you quoted isn't true.

I don't even believe everything I say!

I don't believe you.