Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PhilosopherInAus

Pages: [1]
Why would it be better if people knew that the earth was supposedly flat?

In the end, FE is the minority against RE for the sheer fact that RE can be explained and demonstrated with a scale model and physics.
So why would anyone try and hide flat earth or debate against it if it really was real?

What benefit would be gained from doing such a thing? Like it seems like a massive waste of taxpayer money and government time.

So why do people think that the government cares so badly that the average joe thinks the earth is round when it is flat?

It seems close to ridiculous to believe that they would.

It might be my little sheep mind being a little bit of a sheeple but it sounds like the earth is round and someone said I think that the outdated ideas of philosophers and ancient astronomers and biblical passages are true so I'm gonna make a club.

But it might just be the government putting chemicals in the water, making the earth round and the frogs gay

The galaxies are cartoons -

As an Australian who has access to the rural outback, you can see the Milkyway without a telescope with the naked eye. I dont know, might be the drugs I was given since it doesn't exist to some FE-ers

Last I checked, they arent 'cartoons', they're a ton of stars, planets and their moons, even whole solar systems, sometimes circling around a central star going across hundreds of thousands of lightyears.

I looked briefly at that article and it gave me a headache. It continues to astound me that you would rather believe an 800+ year philosopher etc. over modern technology and naked eye viewing (you would rather say its refraction to that one though)

I wont win in an argument but I sure as hell can out logic him
Where is the logic is trying to outlogic a recording?

There is none but then again, where's the logic in FE?

I wont win in an argument but I sure as hell can out logic him

Most science is observational. But unlike sciences like psychology, astronomy has a level of certainty with it.
Oh, so if the people doing it are "certain" of something it's not a pseudoscience? That's all it takes?

I didn't say that the people had to be certain, there are scientific laws that everything follows.

If we agree that astronomy is a pseudoscience because its theories cannot have experiments to prove it and then experiments to unsuccessfully disprove it, I can bring it back to my original question.

Do the experiments conducted by FE researchers follow the scientific method?
Are the experiments fair? Do they attempt to disprove the original hypothesis?
Is there one singular model of FE that can successfully explain all-natural occurrences as the RE model does? (in reference to daylight cycles, seasons, gravity, etc.)

This post wasn't about astronomy, it was about FE, however, it doesn't matter. I can see why having astronomy as a pseudoscience might help the idea of FE but astronomy isnt about defining the shape of the earth. it's subjects like geology, physics and thermal dynamics that would help the idea.

I'm aware that many mainstream sciences fall under the pseudoscience category but I would have to argue that astronomy is not a pseudoscience. The wiki link you sent could be considered bias for the sheer fact that it is from this website - it's a subdomain - that notoriously cherry-picks information, I will look past that. Astronomy is an observational science as it said in that article and that is correct. Most science is observational. But unlike sciences like psychology, astronomy has a level of certainty with it. Until space travel becomes advance enough, astronomers will be limited in their experiments however, they can still observe an ever-changing universe that follows scientific laws, thermal dynamics, in particular.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« on: August 08, 2021, 12:43:18 AM »
So, for the past 3 months, I've been studying the philosophy of science and how theories can be scientific and pseudoscientific. I have reason to believe that the flat earth theory is pseudoscientific because of a multitude of reasons, which I'm happy to explain if asked.

But this question goes out to the FE theorists who are going out and experimenting. Are your experiments trying to prove or disprove FE?

I've read a lot of articles now saying that believed sciences like psychology and even chiropractics are pseudoscientific because they are not sound/reliable in their evidence and conclusions.

Thanks and I look forward to reading all, if any, responses

Pages: [1]