Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
The Circularity Objection
« on: June 07, 2018, 09:41:45 AM »
Right, but in order to convert lat/lon differences into a straight line/great circle distance, one must first agree upon the shape of the Earth (you refer to that yourself as "knowing how far apart lat/lon points are"). Using it the way you propose would reduce your argument to "the Earth is round, therefore these are the distances, therefore the Earth is round"
This is an excellent formulation of what I call the circularity objection. You hear it many times from Flatearthers: the model RE is using to prove some point itself assumes an RE model, so the proof is circular, or question begging.

Now it’s true that if I worked out a distance between two lat/lon coordinates by using spherical assumptions, then used that distance to ‘prove’ RE, that would be highly question-begging.

But what if I work out the distance in another way? The original way that (short) distances were accurately worked out was by a chains, literally a chain of links spread out on the earth’s surface like a big tape measure.

First question in this debate: do we all accept that a measurement essentially like a big tape measure, perhaps suitably adjusted (I will come on to that later) is indifferent to the shape of the earth, and distances based on this are not circular?

If not, what other measure of distance would you use? Car odometers are actually the same form of measurement – a bit like rolling up the tape measure for every turn of the wheel and reusing it.




Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2018, 10:38:39 AM »
In principle you only need a few short distance calibration measurements. You choose random spots around the earth, measure a fixed distance and determine the longitude/latitude coordinates of the start and end point. Then, by interpolation you can calibrate the whole longitude/latitude grid. Of course, you have to assume that the grid is regular, without discontinuities, arbitrary contractions or elongations. But beyond this, the method is independent of the supposed underlying shape.   

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2018, 10:44:56 AM »
In principle you only need a few short distance calibration measurements. You choose random spots around the earth, measure a fixed distance and determine the longitude/latitude coordinates of the start and end point. Then, by interpolation you can calibrate the whole longitude/latitude grid. Of course, you have to assume that the grid is regular, without discontinuities, arbitrary contractions or elongations. But beyond this, the method is independent of the supposed underlying shape.

Thanks, but you are going too fast! Forget long and lat, start with versions of the 'tape measure'. Is there general agreement that this is an appropriate and independent form of distance measurement? I am working through the records of the Great Indian Survey, where there is a whole chapter on how the temperature affects the length of the chain.

It could be reasonably objected that there is no form of accurate 'tape' measurement at all. Perhaps the tape arbitrarily changes its length for no assignable reason.

So I want to proceed in very short steps of reasoning, aiming to reach agreement at each stage. Thanks.

[edit] Incidentally there was a big debate at the beginning of the India Survey between advocates of astronomical methods and geodesic methods. Colonel Lambton's arguments won the day.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 10:51:03 AM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2018, 12:01:42 PM »
I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my position like this. I made it abundantly clear in the discussion you're referencing that I'm not making a case for or against either model, merely pointing out that that specific methodology (using GPS to determine distances) is not admissible. I also pointed out that yes, other means may exist, but that simply renders the use of GPS redundant.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2018, 12:12:09 PM »
I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my position like this. I made it abundantly clear in the discussion you're referencing that I'm not making a case for or against either model, merely pointing out that that specific methodology (using GPS to determine distances) is not admissible. I also pointed out that yes, other means may exist, but that simply renders the use of GPS redundant.
I did not misrepresent your position. I quoted your exact remark, then said it was an example of 'circularity objection'. Indeed your reply here confirms that!

I agree you are not making a case for or against either model. My point is that your objection relied on the charge of circularity, and actually your objection was correct, assuming no other way of measuring distance.

And what is your reply to the "First question in this debate"?  Do you accept that a measurement essentially like a big tape measure, perhaps suitably adjusted, is indifferent to the shape of the earth, and distances based on this do not depend on circularity?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 12:15:15 PM by edby »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2018, 12:15:02 PM »
Accuracy is always relative. If you put the chain on the ground and the ground is not flat, this will give you an error if you later compare this with the coordinates.

You could use a laser and measure the direct distance between two points at a given height above the ground. But of course there is some inherent error due to the spherical shape of the earth that is more and more significant the larger the distance is.

Before you decide on the method, you should ask yourself, what level of accuracy do you need? If you want to measure the length of the equator or the distance between two cities on different continents, an error of the order of a kilometer would be acceptable. If you buy piece of land, you may want to know its size on the scale of few centimeter.   

If you look at the typically discussed conceptual flat-earth earth maps, you have obvious discrepancies in the order of several hundreds up to several thousands of kilometers in some regions. E.g. in the southern hemisphere of the prototypical monoplar map. Therefor I would say, to rule out any proposed map by finding at least two points where the distance does not fit, you only need an accuracy of a kilometer or so.   

Go to Australia, drive 100 km with your car, measure the coordinates and you have a more accurate calibration as you would need to show that a coordinate mapping for a monopolar map in the southern hemisphere cannot work. 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2018, 12:18:22 PM »
My point is that your objection relied on the charge of circularity, and actually your objection was correct, assuming no other way of measuring distance.
No, my objection is correct regardless of your assumptions. You can potentially use other means to get accurate distances. You can nonetheless not use GPS for this purpose.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2018, 12:22:48 PM »
My point is that your objection relied on the charge of circularity, and actually your objection was correct, assuming no other way of measuring distance.
No, my objection is correct regardless of your assumptions. You can potentially use other means to get accurate distances. You can nonetheless not use GPS for this purpose.
So I said 'your objection was correct' and you replied 'no, my objection is correct'.

Anyway, set that aside. You agree that potentially we can use other means to get accurate distances, and that is fine. Anyone else?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2018, 12:35:26 PM »
So I said 'your objection was correct'
You injected an assumption into it. I implore you to retract that for the sake of honesty.

My point is that your objection relied on the charge of circularity, and actually your objection was correct, assuming no other way of measuring distance.
No, my objection is correct regardless of your assumptions. You can potentially use other means to get accurate distances. You can nonetheless not use GPS for this purpose.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2018, 12:40:37 PM »
So I said 'your objection was correct'
You injected an assumption into it. I implore you to retract that for the sake of honesty.

My point is that your objection relied on the charge of circularity, and actually your objection was correct, assuming no other way of measuring distance.
No, my objection is correct regardless of your assumptions. You can potentially use other means to get accurate distances. You can nonetheless not use GPS for this purpose.
How about, the objection is correct on the assumption that the person you are objecting to is assuming an RE model. Will that do?

[edit] "such as when that person is using GPS"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2018, 12:43:32 PM »
Which is the original thread that the quote in the OP was taken from?

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2018, 12:44:35 PM »
How about, the objection is correct on the assumption that the person you are objecting to is assuming an RE model. Will that do?
That should be "always" when the shape of the Earth is what you're trying to establish.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2018, 12:46:09 PM »
Which is the original thread that the quote in the OP was taken from?

You click on the link at the top of the quote.

Right, but in order to convert lat/lon differences into a straight line/great circle distance, one must first agree upon the shape of the Earth (you refer to that yourself as "knowing how far apart lat/lon points are"). Using it the way you propose would reduce your argument to "the Earth is round, therefore these are the distances, therefore the Earth is round"

It was from 'distance from Paris to London', since consigned to the outer darkness, but mostly intact.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2018, 12:49:07 PM »
How about, the objection is correct on the assumption that the person you are objecting to is assuming an RE model. Will that do?
That should be "always" when the shape of the Earth is what you're trying to establish.
That wasn't what the OP said. It referred to any 'point' that RE is trying to establish. In this case it is distance. RE says the distance is x, the objector points out (possibly correctly) that the measurement of distance has depended on RE model.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2018, 12:52:23 PM »
That wasn't what the OP said.
The OP is irrelevant here. The conversation from which you picked my quote took place after the OP had been moved to AR. It was in direct response to a post by AATW, and nothing else. I also clarified the conditions under which I said what I said.

Once again, I ask you not to misrepresent me. I clarified my position. Trying to tell me that I'm wrong about my own position is unlikely to help.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2018, 12:58:30 PM »
That wasn't what the OP said.
The OP is irrelevant here. The conversation from which you picked my quote took place after the OP had been moved to AR. It was in direct response to a post by AATW, and nothing else. I also clarified the conditions under which I said what I said.

Once again, I ask you not to misrepresent me. I clarified my position. Trying to tell me that I'm wrong about my own position is unlikely to help.

Would it help if I removed your quote entirely, or we trashed the thread or started again? I am substantially agreeing with you that many appeals to the RE model themselves depend on the RE model, and the circularity objection applies. So I am really really really agreeing with you. I quoted you because I thought it was an excellent formulation of a commonly made objection. So I am agreeing with you, and I am complementing you. I don't see why you have a problem.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2018, 01:00:47 PM »
Would it help if I removed your quote entirely, or we trashed the thread or started again?
Perhaps. I'm not sure why this thread is titled "the circularity objection" and why it focuses on my post if all you're doing is agreeing with me. It really sounds like you're trying to start a thread on how to measure distances (of which there have already been many)
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 hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2018, 01:02:14 PM »
The mapping of the world in means of distances in kilometers on one hand, and the system of longitude/latitude on the other hand was done long before GPS was even invented. It's not recently that people in Australia know how far two cities there are apart from each other. The same for any other country in the world, north and south, it doesn't matter. The same with respect to coordinates. The whole system was introduced hundreds of years ago.

Therefor it is just known, how to calibrate a degree of longitude or latitude around the world.

You know the distance in coordinates and kilometers between LA and New York, and you know the distance between Paris and Berlin in coordinates and kilometers. And you know the distances between New York and Paris in coordinates, and from the other two known distances you can now conclude what is the distance between New York and Paris in kilometers. And then you can compare this to all possible maps that came up to your mind.

The same you can do with lots of other cities that are distributed around the world. And as far as I know, up to now no one found ever any contradiction assuming a globe earth, while in any up to now presented flat-earth conceptual map the contradictions in some areas are so obvious that anyone immediately will notice them.   

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2018, 01:05:26 PM »
Would it help if I removed your quote entirely, or we trashed the thread or started again?
Perhaps. I'm not sure why this thread is titled "the circularity objection" and why it focuses on my post if all you're doing is agreeing with me. It really sounds like you're trying to start a thread on how to measure distances (of which there have already been many)
One of the core objections to FE involves the measurement of distance, which I am going to come on to. One of the core replies to that objection is that the measurement of distance (such as GPS) appeals to RE.

My purpose is to show that there are non-circular ways of establishing non-FE. Note my term 'non-FE'. Not-FE does not imply RE.

Perhaps I should have started the thread that way?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: The Circularity Objection
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2018, 01:07:00 PM »
My purpose is to show that there are non-circular ways of establishing non-FE. Note my term 'non-FE'. Not-FE does not imply RE.

Perhaps I should have started the thread that way?
Perhaps, though I don't see how that's in any way novel or controversial. I don't think anyone's denying that it's possible to argue for RET without resorting to circular logic.
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