Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« on: May 19, 2024, 07:52:24 PM »
The wiki contains falsification of RE, even though RE has many observations and explains things like equatorial telescope mounts, sunset/sunrise, eclipse, day and night, 24 hour sun or darkness at the poles, etc etc etc. So let's say RE is falsified despite many reasons to think it is true. My question is whether FE models can be falsified. It seems to me that the ratio of proof of RE to falsification of RE is pretty high, many reasons to believe RE and few to falsify it. FE believers seem to hypothesize various explanations of the problems with various FE models without experiments, proof, equations, etc, just "well, it might be".

My question is why can't RE belief be saved by "well, it might be ..." as FE often is?

Could the true FE model be determined by falsification similar to RE falsification?

If that standard applied to all FE models, would any survive? Why can't the FE world falsify all but one model to determine the true form of the earth? If inconsistencies can be explained by unproven hypothetical forces, how can the FE world ever figure out which is true?

Is it the case that RE has to be complete, consistent, and flawless, while FE can have inconsistencies and not correlate to observations without "unknown forces and unknown equations" as the wiki formerly explained EA (aka "bendy light")?

Does someone have a flawless FE model, no inconsistencies that require light to bend etc? Or are all RE and FE models flawed and we can never know?

I submit that there is no falsification of anything that can not be explained by some mechanism you dream up if no experiment, equations, or other sharable and verifiable is required and that includes RE. For instance, one could easily make up a previously unknown force to explain Michaelson Morley RE falsification. I submit that in this sense, RE is exactly the same as FE models in that you have some reason to believe it, but it has flaws. Until we have experiments, observations, equations etc to explain things like UA and EA, FE is no more unfalsified than RE.

So the solipsist can not believe RE or FE.


I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4202
    • View Profile
Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2024, 11:22:03 PM »
So the solipsist can not believe RE or FE.

As I understand it, according to the definition of solipsism, of course? Seems odd to make your conclusion to such a long post something that is a given.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16104
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2024, 10:07:43 AM »
My question is why can't RE belief be saved by "well, it might be ..."
It can, and it regularly is. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

Is it the case that RE has to be complete, consistent, and flawless, while FE can have inconsistencies and not correlate to observations
It is not. Now, you just need to convince your compatriots that this goes both ways.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2024, 10:34:28 PM »
Re solipsism, this is the definition I meant:

    Philosophy
    the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
    "solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"

Religion, politics, and flat earth often use what I would call "partial solipsism", saying "You can't know that." Information that falsifies their narrative can be dealt with by claiming you can't know (faulty senses, hypnotism, conspiracy, fake news, etc) things. For instance, one FE posted that it is impossible to know the distance across oceans. If the only certainty is
I think, therefor I am" and only your existence to ask the question is certain, all inconvenient facts can be dismissed.
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2024, 10:53:28 PM »
Re falsification of RE/FE:

On the wiki page of maps, all the FE maps are falsifiable by comparing the distances on the maps to gps, airline schedules, google maps, time/speed/distance, navigation works, etc, all consistent and proved many many times daily by airliners arriving, ships, many other ways. In most FE maps. Australia is way too big and the distance to Los Angeles (a route I flew) is way too long.

I have a globe and used a piece of string and the scale printed on the globe to measure some distances and compared them to google maps, lat/long, and various internet sites. They were all the same and matched RE. I submit a globe is the only map that is not falsifiable in that way.

Within Euclidean 3 space and Newtonian physics, RE is not falsifiable. All the FE maps in the wiki are easily falsifiable.

If you want to falsify RE, you can use non-Euclidean geometry and esoteric math. I can also prove that 1 = 0 using math, so ...
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.