[Tumeni]

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.

The instruments are there to tell us what is around us that our senses simply cannot detect, and perhaps render the information in the form that we can perceive them with another sense that doesn't correspond directly with what it being detected. As I pointed out above, a geiger counter providing an audio, visual, or tactile cue to something that is outright undetectable to humans. We have no sense which will detect it until we've been exposed to it and fall ill later. We cannot rely on our senses here.
 
The CD player carries a warning not to operate it because the laser light is invisible to our naked eye, but still harmful. We cannot rely on our senses. 

Humans cannot hear the dog whistle, but will happily use it to summon their pet.

Humans cannot detect the ultrasonic chirping of bats, but will happily build a device to halve or quarter their frequency, and render them audible in order to detect the presence of bats. 

etc etc


 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.

You cannot hear radioactivity. You cannot see it. You cannot taste it. You cannot touch it. You cannot smell it. It's not a case of not trusting one of your senses, it's a case of you being totally unable to perceive it with any of them

You have to trust in a device which will detect it and provide a cue for one or more of your senses, since you have no sense which will detect it.

I cannot trust my hearing in the bat and dog examples above, since I can't detect either. Why would I not trust a device that either rendered the ultrasonics in a range suitable for my hearing, or provided a visual alert to their presence?

I have a gas heating boiler in my garage. I also have a wireless control panel for it, which can be placed anywhere in the house. The control panel has a flame symbol upon its display, this tells me when the boiler has ignited, and is actively heating.

Are you really suggesting that I should not trust my eyesight when this symbol shows up, that I should go into the garage and stick my hand in the flame to verify that it is, indeed, a flame? 

[edby]

This is beginning to look like a first year introduction to philosophy class. It is well-known that the senses are unreliable. Example, straight stick looks bent in water. How do we know it’s not bent? Well we can use the evidence of touch, measuring devices, the knowledge that the stick is rigid, the considerable evidence of refraction and so on.

This requires a theoretical model of the world, rather than one based on the senses. Do we use the senses to observe the measuring instruments? Sure, but the instruments come with the theory as part of the package.

Zetetic philosophy also requires a theory. For example, when the sun sets it looks as though it is disappearing under the horizon. However, because Zetetism has a theoretical model that assumes the earth is flat, this has to be explained in a way that contradicts the appearance.

[Rushy]

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.

It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.

[Tumeni]

It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.

If I handed you two fuel rods, one radioactive, one not, could you rely on your senses to tell you which one is safe to handle? Without waiting to fall ill from radiation poisoning at a later hour or date?

Wouldn't you rely on a geiger counter to do this for you?

[Rushy]

It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.

If I handed you two fuel rods, one radioactive, one not, could you rely on your senses to tell you which one is safe to handle? Without waiting to fall ill from radiation poisoning at a later hour or date?

Wouldn't you rely on a geiger counter to do this for you?

Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.

[Dr David Thork]

It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.

If I handed you two fuel rods, one radioactive, one not, could you rely on your senses to tell you which one is safe to handle? Without waiting to fall ill from radiation poisoning at a later hour or date?

Wouldn't you rely on a geiger counter to do this for you?

Both would be radioactive for 10's of thousands of years. But spotting the undepleted one would be very easy using your senses. Turn the lights out in the room.

[Bad Puppy]

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.

It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.

Your home is flooding with natural gas which did NOT have tert-butylthiol added for the smell.  You can't see it, smell it, hear it, taste it, feel it.  In other words, you'd have NO idea it's flooding your home.  Would you trust the additive to inform you of the danger?

There's a reason it's added to natural gas.  Because your senses cannot detect it in its natural state.

[Pete Svarrior]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari

Yes, quoting a satirist is certainly going to help your case. Remember what I said about lying?

[Tumeni]

Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.

The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.

[AATW]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari

Yes, quoting a satirist is certainly going to help your case. Remember what I said about lying?

I just searched your Wiki for the word “senses”. That was one of the quotes I found. It is not “lying” to reference it, it’s in your own Wiki. It is also not lying to claim that quotes from your Wiki are representitive of FE thinking. If they are not then what are they doing on your Wiki? If you feel I have misinterpreted them then fine, feel free to correct me. But your go to tactic of just calling me a liar and not elaborating is lazy.

And that is not the only quote from your Wiki I referenced, I have been through in more detail the quote from your FAQ which gives several examples of things we can perceive with our senses which it claims are evidence of a flat earth when in fact none of them are.

If part of FE mentality is that our senses tell us that the earth is flat and that adds weight to the idea of a Flat Earth then
a) No they don’t and
b) No it doesn’t.

If that isn’t part of FE mentality then maybe you should review the quotes I have referenced in your Wiki which imply it is or correct my interpretation of those quotes. Lying means deliberately trying to deceive people. I am not trying to do that no matter how many times you claim I am. At worst I am being stupid and misunderstanding those quotes.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is also not lying to claim that quotes from your Wiki are representitive of FE thinking.

It most certainly is lying. You took an article that says "here's a guy that satirises us, and here's what he says", omitted the inconvenient fact that he's a satirist, and pretended that it's representative of FE thinking. It's particularly egregious, and particularly damning.

Two can play that game. Here, I can do it too:

the earth is flat

AATW clearly believes the Earth is flat. After all, he said so explicitly and I'm merely referencing his words. It is impossible for me to be dishonest about it - after all, I quoted his words verbatim! The above quote is thus representative of AATW thinking. Another victory for FES!

If they are not then what are they doing on your Wiki?

Because our job is not only to document FE thinking, but also FE history. Notable organisations and speakers who brought attention to the subject by poking fun at it are still important.

But your go to tactic of just calling me a liar and not elaborating is lazy.

Of course, you lie again. I did elaborate right here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Leo_Ferrari

Yes, quoting a satirist is certainly going to help your case. Remember what I said about lying?

My contention is that you took an article which explicitly states that it's dealing with a satirical organisation, stripped the word "satirical", and attempted to present it as evidence of FE thinking. I do not for a moment believe that this omission was accidental. If it were, you would have reflected upon it when I first raised the issue. Instead, you chose to flatly deny it and accuse me of "just calling you a liar and not elaborating".

Thank you for reminding me to look at your other quotes. One (200 proofs) is a verbatim copy of a historical work, which we preserved because it used to be difficult to find. Another (Albert Smith), again, is a quote of a historical figure. The horizon article merely asks the question to establish a sense of intuition and doesn't rely on it at all - it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Finally, your understanding of the FAQ is such an extreme stretch that I don't feel that need to take it all that seriously. We've gone from one lie to 4-5 (I'll accept the possibility of misunderstanding in the FAQ's case, since it's at least not a case of ignoring something that's been explicitly stated). Good show.

[Rushy]

Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.

The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

[stack]

Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.

The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

I think the point is that our senses alone are inadequate in certain situations.

Sometimes we need to enhance our senses with additional methods/instruments. A flashlight helps us see in a scenario where it is too dark to see without it. Would you trust your sense of sight alone to guide you out of a darkened cave? No, eyesight as a sense is null and void at that point. Maybe you could rely on touch and smell, but hopefully not taste. What if the situation makes all of your senses inadequate as given in the other examples. Then you would rely on a method/instrument to enhance your previously rendered inadequate senses to become adequate.

So no, you cannot only trust your senses if they are rendered inadequate by the situation at hand and yes, you can trust your senses if they are adequate or enhanced to become so.

[edby]

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.

It's impossible to trust an instrument over your own senses, because the only way you can view that instrument is via your senses. If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either.

Your senses are sometimes not trustworthy. It doesn't follow they are always not trustworthy. Clearly not.

Also, the inference  'If your senses are not trustworthy, the instrument isn't, either' is not valid.

[timterroo]

The question of whether or not you trust your own senses doesn't really matter. Since reality only exists insofar as you can perceive it through your senses, you are required to inherently trust what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel is tantamount to reality......

Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.

The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

So, are you now arguing that whether or not you can trust your senses actually does matter in reality? Do you have a reason to not trust your senses?

[Tumeni]

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).

You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.   

[Rushy]

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).

You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.

If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?

[edby]

If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?

Once again, sometimes your senses can be trusted. But not always.

[stack]

If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?

You use an instrument to enhance your senses to make them trustworthy again.

[Tumeni]

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

The instrument gives you either a visual or auditory reading. You can trust this if you can trust your visual sense to see it (the same way as you would trust it to be able to read a book), and/or you can trust your auditory sense to hear it (the same way as you would trust it to hear someone talk to you).

You can't trust your senses to do the work of detecting radioactivity for you since it has no smell, taste, texture, sound or visibility associated with it. So your senses can't be trusted to know what's radioactive or not.

If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?

In most circumstances, you can trust your sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Can you categorise radioactivity under any of these? I don't think you can. It is outwith your senses.

Therefore, you must trust your viewing or hearing of the instrument.