1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Appeal to a lack of contrary evidence

« on: February 07, 2018, 07:47:08 PM »

Consider the following:

"We cannot know how much we do not know, therefore we cannot truly know anything."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why/why not?

Another way to look at this is through the classic "brain-in-a-jar" existential Descartes du jour; "you can't prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed sensory information, therefore you can't prove that you know anything true and real."

How far do you stray from "I think, therefore I am?" Or, do you not even go that far?

I see the appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance, crop up a lot in the flat earth circles I dwell most often (not including this forum). I wanted to gauge where everyone stands on this philosophical question.

2

Flat Earth Theory / How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: January 30, 2018, 04:30:43 PM »

Hey, guys. How come this?









Expanded:

I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.

If we then assume that the sun and moon are hovering over the flat earth disc, rotating around it like the hands on a clock, then we should be able to make certain predictions about how they would appear to move... at least, that sounds reasonable to me.

Therefore, if we have some idea what the sun and moon do as they rotate around and around above the flat earth... why then do we observe the phenomenon described here?

Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.

Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.

Regards,



supe

3

Suggestions & Concerns / Can't Send PMs

« on: January 15, 2018, 11:14:44 PM »

Or at least, I can't view my sent PMs from my profile. I sent one to a moderator before, and now another. Neither one has ever appeared in my sent items.

Why don't it do?

EDIT: Sorry if this is the wrong forum. I didn't see anything for technical support.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / How the Scientific Method Demonstrates 'Objective' Truth

« on: January 13, 2018, 05:26:25 PM »

This is kind of a spin-off of another post in Debate, but now that I've had time to think about it, I reckon that post should have been placed here in the first place.

Some further ruminations while trawling through the rival FES forum led me to the following hypothesis:

"If the evidence submitted in support of a scientific claim has been obtained by adhering correctly to the scientific method, rather than the claim simply being the result of a mistake in one's attempt to adhere correctly to the scientific method, then the evidence can be relied upon to provide us with a solid and reasonable approximation of what we call 'true.' Therefore, the same can be said of the method used to derive said evidence."

This is meant to support the claim that we exist in grounded, objective reality. Here is what I mean in the most practical way I can put it, broken down, with bold for emphasis:

1 ) To test the ruggedness and reliability of any method is to test its capacity for making predictions successfully and accurately. This is what it means to "test" objectivity itself.

2 ) To attempt to demonstrate objectivity, we must first agree upon a reliable method for determining what we "know," and conversely, "don't know," for all that objectivity means in a practical sense.

3 ) The method in question - the scientific method - attempts to root out what is unreliable, implausible, or otherwise unreasonable to call "true" or "known..." That's why we call it science, from the Latin scientia, from scire, which means "to know."

4 ) The scientific method, like any tool, is susceptible to user error, but that is not the same as the method itself being in error.

I don't mean to suggest that just because someone claims something is "scientific" or "it's science, bitch" means that the claim itself is true, just that the method for deriving the evidence in support of that claim has to be consistent with the scientific method in order for it to be called true scientifically, which is to say true objectively.

Put in the form of a hypothesis, what I'm saying is what you saw at the start of the post:

"If the evidence submitted in support of a scientific claim has been derived by adhering correctly to the scientific method, rather than simply being the result of a mistake in one's attempt to adhere correctly to the scientific method, then the evidence can be relied upon to provide us with a solid and reasonable approximation of what we call 'true.' Therefore, the same can be said of the method used to derive said evidence."

Does that make sense to you?

5

Flat Earth Theory / We Exist in Grounded, Objective Reality

« on: January 12, 2018, 07:18:01 AM »

So I've got at least a few claims here that I want to work out, because I think they're pretty fundamental to both models flat and round.

1 ) We exist in grounded, objective reality.

2 ) The subjective, first-person experience is the only exception to the first claim. Barring that one exception, there is nothing that any one person can observe that another person cannot also observe, congruently, given that both observers repeat the same experiment and possess the same physical capacity to observe (literally sense of sight, hearing, taste, etc.).

3 ) Differences in opinion can be meted out as factual, plausible, or inconclusive.

4 ) With respect to the competing models of the earth,  only one model comports with reality - it can't be both.

I think it's important that we agree on these premises if we're ever going to make any headway. It's hard enough getting people to stop yammering on about the conspiracy claims and ignoring simple, cogent explanations, but then every so often some solipsistic tripe makes its way into the conversation.

I don't know if there's anyone here who disagrees strongly enough with these premises to make a counter claim, but I invite anyone to play devil's advocate, if that is indeed the case.

The floor is yours, gentlemen.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The Commandments of Intellectual Honesty

« on: January 12, 2018, 04:38:19 AM »

Work in progress. Felt like sharing. Feel free to add to it.

 - Find common ground with thy opponent.
 - Know thy logical fallacies.
 - Avoid thy logical fallacies.
 - Be not ashamed of being mistaken.
 - Admit fault readily and earnestly.
 - Don't just fling shit around until it sticks.

I know there's more. Just trying to add to some best practices that I think anyone should be able to agree with.

7

Flat Earth Theory / You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:00:44 PM »

Very simply put, no one has to address the conspiracy claims in order to demonstrate why the flat earth model is not consistent with reality. Happy to discuss the conspiracy claims in another thread and show you why THEY fall flat for totally different reasons, but right now I want to hash this out and demonstrate the hypothesis in the title:

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

Once we take the time to actually demonstrate why this is, the only response proponents can retreat to is hand-waving about conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm not knocking the conspiratorial elements utterly - certainly there's all kinds of things the elites and the authorities keep hidden from us for one reason or another, however sinister or mundane. All I'm saying is that THIS isn't one of those conspiracies.

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model. It is only rational to then assume that whichever model we call "true" must therefore not only be logically consistent, but also exhibit few internal contradictions.

As a gesture of good will, I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation. Happy to debate those claims with you another time, but for the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

8

Flat Earth Community / Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 04:57:51 AM »

Or: Why There Are No Atheists In Flat Foxholes