[Gaia]

Hello, I'm new here and I find this whole forum fascinating. I hope my question is something a bit different as I understand you might find answering the same questions over and over a tad tiresome.

 I've read quite a few of the debates and one of the things that stood out for me in the arguments given by the flat earth proponents is that they unfailing trust the evidence given out by their senses.
By this I mean that the most compelling evidence for flat earth seem to be the fact it looks flat, it can't be spinning because we can't feel it etc.

What I'm curious about is why you think human senses (which are relatively imprecise and can be fooled by both natural and man made phenomena) and perception (which is inherently limited and biased) are the best me and to draw conclusions of reality?

Hope this is the right place for this question and thank for any answers in advance

[Rushy]

How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.

[AATW]

How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.

See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.

[Gaia]

How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.

See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.

Yes, AllAroundTheWorld got my point. I certainly don't claim to posses some sort of 6th sense to understand the universe. Sorry I didn't make my meaning clearer.

Of course our senses are the only way we can receive information, however most natural phenomena can be measured and observed with much more precision by different instruments, these findings make much more reliable foundation for understanding analysing these things. 

[Tumeni]

How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses?

By using instruments and devices.

Examples;

My microwave oven looks inactive, even when switched on. Only the light inside and a cooling fan give away that it's in operation. If these were disconnected, my senses (and yours) would, until a hand was placed in there and cooked, tell us that there was nothing there.

The sarcophagus at Chernobyl, to the naked eye, looks harmless, as does any other radioactive source. I would rely on a geiger counter rather than my senses.

The glass of water in front of me looks clean. However, if I really want to know if there's any pathogens or toxins within, I really need the help of a chemist and the tools available to him or her, don't I?

That's three examples of how your senses might let you down. Why should they be trusted specifically in the determination of whether or not the Earth is flat, when they are unreliable in so many other arenas?
 

[Rushy]

How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.

See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.

How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?

[AATW]

Yes, of course you use your senses to read those instruments but the FE mentality seems to be “the horizon looks flat, ergo the earth is flat” or “the horizon appears to be at eye level regardless of your altitude, therefore the horizon is always at eye level”.
In my thread I have provided several quotes from the Wiki with this kind of reasoning.

[Pete Svarrior]

the FE mentality seems to be “the horizon looks flat, ergo the earth is flat” or “the horizon appears to be at eye level regardless of your altitude, therefore the horizon is always at eye level”.

AATW, lying is always such a bad look for you. You're a reasonably intelligent guy, and yet you choose to leave a bitter taste in people's mouth when you do things like this.

So, let's set you straight once more. The logic is not just that the horizon looking flat means it looks flat. That's just a small bit of evidence, which is not inseparable from a broader context. Your objection to empirical inquiry is that some evidence, on its own, is not conclusive. But, conveniently, none of it exists in a vacuum.

[AATW]

The logic is not just that the horizon looking flat means it looks flat. That's just a small bit of evidence

But that ISN'T evidence for a flat earth, or for a globe earth or for a cube earth.
But it is presented as such in several places in your Wiki. Copying from my other thread:

Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe!

https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
(Number 18)

The average man can’t advance a single reason for believing that the world is round. He accepts that theory on blind faith and rejects the evidence of his own senses.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

And this quote which isn't about the flat horizon but is another spurious claim that were we moving we would be able to sense it:

Shall we blindly believe a theory which in the nature of things is so impracticable, and a theory which directly contradicts the evidences of our God-given senses? We feel no motion; we see no motion; and we hear no motion; while our senses favour the reasonable and demonstrable fact that the earth is stationary.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Albert_Smith

This makes as much sense as refusing to believe that an airplane is moving at hundreds of miles an hour because I can only feel a slight vibration. And from your page about horizon dip, or lack thereof:

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Again, the logic here is "the horizon looks like it's at eye level, ergo it is".

So while it may have been harsh to call these things the "FE Mentality" they are both examples of FE reasoning as presented in your own Wiki. And in both cases they are spurious. A flat horizon is NOT evidence for (or against) a flat earth, the horizon looking like it's at eye level doesn't mean it IS at eye level and a close to eye level horizon would also be seen on a globe or flat earth.

TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.

[Bad Puppy]

The logic is not just that the horizon looking flat means it looks flat. That's just a small bit of evidence

But that ISN'T evidence for a flat earth, or for a globe earth or for a cube earth.
But it is presented as such in several places in your Wiki. Copying from my other thread:

Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe!

https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
(Number 18)

The average man can’t advance a single reason for believing that the world is round. He accepts that theory on blind faith and rejects the evidence of his own senses.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

And this quote which isn't about the flat horizon but is another spurious claim that were we moving we would be able to sense it:

Shall we blindly believe a theory which in the nature of things is so impracticable, and a theory which directly contradicts the evidences of our God-given senses? We feel no motion; we see no motion; and we hear no motion; while our senses favour the reasonable and demonstrable fact that the earth is stationary.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Albert_Smith

This makes as much sense as refusing to believe that an airplane is moving at hundreds of miles an hour because I can only feel a slight vibration. And from your page about horizon dip, or lack thereof:

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Again, the logic here is "the horizon looks like it's at eye level, ergo it is".

So while it may have been harsh to call these things the "FE Mentality" they are both examples of FE reasoning as presented in your own Wiki. And in both cases they are spurious. A flat horizon is NOT evidence for (or against) a flat earth, the horizon looking like it's at eye level doesn't mean it IS at eye level and a close to eye level horizon would also be seen on a globe or flat earth.

TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.

AllAroundTheWorld, I present you with a brick wall against which you can bang your head.  With this you can use your senses to deduce that you won't get anywhere with this.  I feel quite convinced by your argument that we cannot simply rely on just our senses.

[Rushy]

TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.

As we already established earlier, there's no other mechanism with which you can perceive the earth. Everything at some point must filter through your senses, therefore your senses alone are the only thing you can use to determine the earth's shape.

[AATW]

TL;DR: Our senses are not sufficient by themselves to determine the shape of the earth.

As we already established earlier, there's no other mechanism with which you can perceive the earth. Everything at some point must filter through your senses, therefore your senses alone are the only thing you can use to determine the earth's shape.

Fine, and I don't disagree with that. Of course ultimately our senses are how we perceive anything. But that's not the same as saying that we can build evidence for a flat earth just by looking at stuff. This quote from the Wiki, from the FAQ:

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world.

Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:

The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.

The bottoms of clouds are flat - not even sure that one is true, even if it is I don't know what bearing that would have on the shape of the earth.

The movement of the sun - this one is ironic given that a core FE belief is UA which is used as a substitute for gravity, the claim being that it would be indistinguishable from gravity (true in many ways but the Cavendish experiment is demonstration of gravity as a force). Point being the exact same thing applies here. The sun moving across the sky would look exactly the same if the sun went round a stationary earth or the earth rotates and the sun remains still (relatively, let's not go down that rabbit hole).

None of these things are evidence for or against a flat earth. And the horizon always at eye level page is basically one long "well, it looks like it's at eye level, so it is". Case closed! No controlled experiments are outlined on that page. Yes, if we do a controlled experiment we are using our senses to look at the results but that's not the same as just looking at the horizon, figuring it looks pretty much at eye level and saying that is evidence for it being AT eye level regardless of altitude.

There seems to be an emphasis of what you can perceive rather than what you can measure.

[Tumeni]

How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?

I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears. 

Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?

And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later.....  Sixth sense, indeed....

[timterroo]

I have started a similar thread. Feel free to read my somewhat lengthy explanation of why you cannot always rely on your senses to give you accurate information.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10554.0

I whole-heartedly believe that your reality is based on your perception. There's an interesting TED talk about consciousness as a hallucination.

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?language=en

In essence, your reality is a controlled hallucination that you are experiencing. Subjective in so many ways.

I understand what rushy is saying that you are 100% dependent on your own 5 senses to make sense out of anything. There is no other way to get input, unless you believe in transcendental forces, reiki, prophetic dreams, and that sort of thing. Which is a whole other topic that I'd be willing to discuss as well if anyone is interested.

The point is, when it comes down to it, you cannot even be 100% sure that you aren't the only conscious being in reality, experiencing some grand dream or vision that one day you will die and wake up from. You can't be 100% sure that others around you aren't just figments of your imagination.

However, you CAN make use of tools and technology to help your senses gain input in different and unique ways - adding to your conscious reality, and increasing your ability to ascertain the world around you. We would never have discovered things such as atoms if we relied solely on our senses.

Other examples of tools that aid our senses are microphones, headphones, stereoscopes, telescopes, seismographs, stethoscopes, etc.

[Rushy]

How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?

I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears. 

Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?

And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later.....  Sixth sense, indeed....

If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.

[timterroo]

How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?

I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears. 

Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?

And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later.....  Sixth sense, indeed....

If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.

Here's an example that might help:

If I am hard of hearing, I wouldn't necessarily trust my senses to hear a crying baby. If I have a hearing-aid, however, I would trust that if I hear a baby cry, that is indeed what I am hearing.

[timterroo]

Or another example:

If I live in a very seismic location, I don't know that I'd trust my senses to detect a low frequency earth-quake. If I was looking at a seismograph, I would trust it if I saw and heard it going off.

[Rushy]

Here's an example that might help:

If I am hard of hearing, I wouldn't necessarily trust my senses to hear a crying baby. If I have a hearing-aid, however, I would trust that if I hear a baby cry, that is indeed what I am hearing.

No amount of aids can give hearing to the deaf.

[timterroo]

Here's an example that might help:

If I am hard of hearing, I wouldn't necessarily trust my senses to hear a crying baby. If I have a hearing-aid, however, I would trust that if I hear a baby cry, that is indeed what I am hearing.

No amount of aids can give hearing to the deaf.

Indeed. Although, there is a controversial procedure called a "cochlear implant" that can supposedly restore at least partial hearing in someone who is deaf. It does depend on the type of deafness, however.

Check this out:

http://time.com/76154/deaf-culture-cochlear-implants/

[Gaia]

How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?

I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears. 

Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?

And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later.....  Sixth sense, indeed....

If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.

Yes, it is true that our brains can only receive information through our five senses (and I never referred to a sixth one, in fact I pointed out I don't have one). Because of this our perception of the world is never 100% reliable, however the purpose of scientific equipment as well as the whole scientific method have been developed for the very reason of minimizing these inaccuracies.

For why I would trust an instrument over my own senses is simply because it has been built for the purpose of measuring a specific phenomena.