[xenotolerance]

A careful reader might notice the use of the word 'resembles.'

You reject the best available evidence prima facie because it shows the Earth is not flat. In questioning the reality of things that prove you wrong, you act like Pyrrho, who questioned the reality of everything. This comparison is unfair to Pyrrho, because he at least was skeptical of all things all the time.

You are right to value empiricism. You're wrong about everything else.

[Tom Bishop]

You are right to value empiricism. You're wrong about everything else.

That is what the rest of the book is for, to demonstrate that FET is the most empirical conclusion.

[Tom Bishop]

The debates between rationalists and empiricists on the nature of the earth can be exceedingly difficult. If the opponents are unwilling to meet on an agreed playing field, reasoned debate is all but impossible. The empiricist will demand a reexamination of facts and first principles, while the rationalist counters and dismisses that need with 100 different arguments ranging from appeals to authority to strawman fallacies. The rationionalist knows that he is right, and considers the underlying science a settled matter.

To be fair to the rationalist, he is put into a tough situation. The rationalist is not only asked show that his theory is correct, but to also show that the underlying science itself is correct.

It is of great importance to guide the reader to understand that empericists, at their essence, are driven to question the fundamental assumptions of our universe to seek greater understanding.

Rationists claim to also seek greater understanding, but go about it in a far different way. Rationalists pride themselves on "standing on the shoulders of giants," creating theory that supplants theory, content with explanations that seemily describe the workings of things, but is ultimately founded on a house of cards. The rationalist may deny this, but in many areas it is easily demonstratable.

[Frocious]

The debates between rationalists and empiricists on the nature of the earth can be exceedingly difficult. If the opponents are unwilling to meet on an agreed playing field, reasoned debate is all but impossible. The empiricist will demand a reexamination of facts and first principles, while the rationalist counters and dismisses that need with 100 different arguments ranging from appeals to authority to strawman fallacies. The rationionalist knows that he is right, and considers the underlying science a settled matter.

To be fair to the rationalist, he is put into a tough situation. The rationalist is not only asked show that his theory is correct, but to also show that the underlying science itself is correct.

It is of great importance to guide the reader to understand that empericists, at their essence, are driven to question the fundamental assumptions of our universe to seek greater understanding.

Rationists claim to also seek greater understanding, but go about it in a far different way. Rationalists pride themselves on "standing on the shoulders of giants," creating theory that supplants theory, content with explanations that seemily describe the workings of things, but is ultimately founded on a house of cards. The rationalist may deny this, but in many areas it is easily demonstratable.

I feel like everything you have typed here can be said about your supposed "empiricism."

When is the last time you have actually gone out and tried to determine the shape of the Earth? You have demonstrated your lack of initiative several times -- the moon/sun string trick, your lack of a desire to travel anywhere else in the world to help prove your point, etc.

[Tontogary]

I notice that there is at the beginning of this thread a lot written about empirical evidence against rationalisation.

Let me offer a wealth of empirical evidence that gets dismissed.

For hundreds of years seafarers and navigators have been measuring distances sailed against distances calculated from the RE model.
This empirical evidence, experience and observation should be enough to sway most people that there is some merit in the observations.

Literally Millions of seafarers have used their senses, observed and travelled, measured the distances, calculated positions and recorded them four hundreds of years, and have the empirical evidence of the observations.

The counter argument to this is that the millions of people and observations are somehow wrong or misled, without offering a wealth of counter empirical observations that are repeatable.

The mass of Oservable and recorded evidence is therefore dismissed as some hoax, or misunderstanding on the part of millions.

[edby]

The debates between rationalists and empiricists on the nature of the earth can be exceedingly difficult. If the opponents are unwilling to meet on an agreed playing field, reasoned debate is all but impossible. The empiricist will demand a reexamination of facts and first principles, while the rationalist counters and dismisses that need with 100 different arguments ranging from appeals to authority to strawman fallacies. The rationionalist knows that he is right, and considers the underlying science a settled matter.

To be fair to the rationalist, he is put into a tough situation. The rationalist is not only asked show that his theory is correct, but to also show that the underlying science itself is correct.

It is of great importance to guide the reader to understand that empericists, at their essence, are driven to question the fundamental assumptions of our universe to seek greater understanding.

Rationists claim to also seek greater understanding, but go about it in a far different way. Rationalists pride themselves on "standing on the shoulders of giants," creating theory that supplants theory, content with explanations that seemily describe the workings of things, but is ultimately founded on a house of cards. The rationalist may deny this, but in many areas it is easily demonstratable.

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
There is no corresponding debate in science, as far as I know. The method used in science is to calibrate observable data to some model of reality. The data should be verifiable, i.e. it should be open to anyone to check the data, and free from bias (no tampering by vested interests). If the model is consistent with the data, we accept it, at least temporarily. But then the progress of science consists in trying to falsify the model, i.e. try to find data that is not consistent with the model.

Does FE have a methodology on those lines? I think it has a model, namely a flat surface on which it should be possible to plot all the places in the known world. How is that model tested against the data? I posted elsewhere about how such a model is consistent with observable and verifiable data on flight times.

[Tom Bishop]

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one.

As is truth.

[AATW]

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one.

As is truth.

What do you mean by that?

There are some things which cannot be determined absolutely, they are subjective:
"Trump is a bad president", "The Spice Girls are the greatest musical act of all time"
These are highly subjective statements, they may be interesting to discuss but ultimately there is no "absolute" truth about them.

Then there are things like "Brexit is the wrong decision for the UK".
Now, that is a complex topic which has been discussed ad nauseum over here. One aspect of it is the economy - some thing the sky will fall in economically if we leave, some think we'll be just fine. Let's say in 10 years time when we've left the economy is doing fine. People who wanted to leave will say "we told you so!". Or let's say the economy has done poorly, people who wanted to stay will say "we told you so!". The problem with those arguments is we don't know how the economy would have done had the other decision been made. In scientific lingo there is no "control". So while there might be an absolute truth about this, it is pretty much impossible to determine.

But with something like, say, the shape of the earth, there is a clear, absolute truth about that. Let's simplify things and say it's either flat or a globe...well, it can't be both. If you think it's flat and I think it's a globe then one of us is wrong. And while you can always claim there is some doubt the objections get increasingly desperate and spurious when, say, you're shown a load of photographs which clearly demonstrate horizon dip. So while yes, there is technically always some doubt about anything (outside of the fairly limited language of mathematics), the doubt about some things becomes increasingly theoretical and it's a weird way to live your life. You'd never get out of bed in the morning without checking to make sure the floor had not disappeared overnight or replaced by a replica which is brittle and you'd fall right through. No-one really lives their life doubting everything like that.

[edby]

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one

As is truth.

We don't need any philosophical debates, as should have been apparent from my post above. The question is which model of reality predicts observational data the best. Not a philosophical question.

And what AllAroundTheWorld said. This is not an abstruse philosophical or theological question. Clearly one of 'the earth is flat' and 'it is not the case that the earth is flat' must be true, and there are decisive experimental observations which can settle the question. It's not like 'is there life after death', which is a tricky one for all sorts of reasons.

[Tom Bishop]

Sorry for the edits. The moderator edit button looks a lot like a reply button in mobile. I restored your content.

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one.

As is truth.

We don't need any philosophical debates, as should have been apparent from my post above. The question is which model of reality predicts observational data the best. Not a philosophical question.

And what AllAroundTheWorld said. This is not an abstruse philosophical or theological question. Clearly one of 'the earth is flat' and 'it is not the case that the earth is flat' must be true, and there are decisive experimental observations which can settle the question. It's not like 'is there life after death', which is a tricky one for all sorts of reasons.

If rationalists are just building theories and truths based on rationalization rather than direct empirical evidence, then the concept of truth does become a philosophical matter. Should we base truth on empirical research or rationalized research? Once the content is fully fleshed out the reader is left to decide on what he or she considers truth to be.

[AATW]

Should we base truth on empirical research or rationalized research?

Well, clearly empirical measurements like a load of photos and video from space or experiments clearly showing the horizon dips below eye level at altitude are preferable to baseless assertions about fakery and crazy claims about the "real horizon" being in the middle of what is clearly the sky.

I am once again interested how you claim to value empirical research but refuse to do any when shown simple and cheap ways to test your assertions.

[markjo]

You are right to value empiricism. You're wrong about everything else.

That is what the rest of the book is for, to demonstrate that FET is the most empirical conclusion.

Except that FET isn't the "most empirical conclusion" because you reject any empirical observations that contradict your preferred conclusion, such as the observations made by over 500 astronauts who have flown in space and personally witnessed the roundness of the earth.  Or are you suggesting that only empirical evidence that can be gathered by any casual observer should be considered valid?

Who decides which empirical observations should be trusted and which shouldn't?  Only 3 people have ever been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench.  Should we trust their observations or do we disregard them because diving that deep requires such specialized equipment that the general public could never hope to make such a dive?