[Bad Puppy]

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?

There's no shame in conceding.  Tumeni's arguments are sound.

[timterroo]

I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:

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. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.

Not sure why he is concerned with it now...

[Rushy]

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.

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.

If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things  that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.

I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:

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. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.

Not sure why he is concerned with it now...

You misunderstood my entire post. I was pointing out that you must trust your senses in order to perceive reality. These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.

[Bad Puppy]

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.

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.

If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things  that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.

I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:

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. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.

Not sure why he is concerned with it now...

You misunderstood my entire post. I was pointing out that you must trust your senses in order to perceive reality. These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.

Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree.  But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly.  Can you acknowledge that?

[timterroo]

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.

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.

If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things  that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.

I think we can move this along. Rushy has already acknowledged on one of my previous threads that he doesn't regard the trustworthiness of senses even an issue:

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. It's possible to trick these senses, of course, but you only realize the trick when you have a "more real" experience to compare the trick against. Your senses have to fed multiple inputs, and then you decide some set of inputs is "more real" than another set. If your entire existence is a trick, you would never discover it, since you there's no objective reference frame to compare your subjective experience towards.

Not sure why he is concerned with it now...

You misunderstood my entire post. I was pointing out that you must trust your senses in order to perceive reality. These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.

"These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses."

I think you are falling for a logical fallacy here. You are confusing a binary argument with a non-binary argument - one with many possible states of outcome. Senses are not merely on and off. Sometimes your senses are working perfectly, and it is your brain that is flawed. Sometimes your senses are off and your brain corrects their flaws and creates a reality that makes... more sense.

The ability to trust in ones senses is not merely yes or no, I trust them or I don't. You might trust them in one situation, but not another, or trust a combination of senses over another. It's not simply about input and output. It's about a complex, subjective perception of reality influenced by past, present, and future.

[Rushy]

Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree.  But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly.  Can you acknowledge that?

Alright let me make this more clear:

1. Instruments are a part of reality.
2. A human being can only perceive reality via their senses.

Therefore:

3. If a human being does not trust their senses to perceive reality, they cannot trust an instrument, either.

[timterroo]

Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree.  But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly.  Can you acknowledge that?

Alright let me make this more clear:

1. Instruments are a part of reality.
2. A human being can only perceive reality via their senses.

Therefore:

3. If a human being does not trust their senses to perceive reality, they cannot trust an instrument, either.

That's not how logic works:

3. should have been:

A human can only perceive an instrument with their senses.

[Bad Puppy]

Yes, you must trust your senses to a certain degree.  But you must also acknowledge that there are times your senses will fail to perceive reality correctly, and as such can cause you to perceive reality incorrectly.  Can you acknowledge that?

Alright let me make this more clear:

1. Instruments are a part of reality.
2. A human being can only perceive reality via their senses.

Therefore:

3. If a human being does not trust their senses to perceive reality, they cannot trust an instrument, either.

Okay.  Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses.  Just you, a room, gas.  Your options:

1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.

Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not.  And this is why they add a smell to the gas.

[Tumeni]

These other fellows keep trying to say they don't trust their senses, but they do trust an instrument. This makes no sense at all, you can't use an instrument without also using one of your senses.

No, this fellow said that radioactivity is totally outwith the detection capabilities of your senses. None of your senses can detect it directly, until after you've been exposed, when your senses can only detect the symptoms of radiation sickness, but still not the radioactivity itself.

Since your senses cannot detect it, since it is totally outwith their capabilities, you must therefore detect it with an instrument which renders a signal in a form which your senses can detect, and which you can trust; an audio, visual, taste, touch or smell signal.

No?

[Tumeni]

Rushy, do you drive?

[AATW]

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.

As I explained, I simply searched the Wiki for quotes with the word "senses" in it.
If I missed the context of that quote then fair enough, "my bad" as the Americans say.
But it was not deliberate and therefore not a lie no matter how many times you shout it.
And given that it is very similar thinking to the other quotes, one of which is in your FAQ and therefore surely not unrepresentative, another from "100 proofs" overall my point stands. 

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.

I cannot control what you believe, but the omission was accidental in the sense that I didn't even know it was an omission, I just copied and pasted the quote I found when I searched your Wiki. I agree it was sloppy of me to not read further to check the context but it was not deliberate and thus not a lie.

Finally, your understanding of the FAQ is such an extreme stretch that I don't feel that need to take it all that seriously.

Really? Interesting. I don't know how many ways there are to understand this sentence:

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

[AATW]

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?

Come on Rushy, don't play dumb.
If I want to test the idea that the horizon is always at eye level then what is the more reliable method? Is it
a) Looking at the horizon from a hill and thinking "yep, looks about eye level"
b) Using some equipment specifically designed to measure angles, pointing at the horizon and reading the measurement.

I'm going with "b". And yes, of course in "b" you are using your senses to look at the reading of the equipment, but it's the equipment doing the heavy lifting and giving you a more accurate result than your dead reckoning in 'a'.

[Pete Svarrior]

Really? Interesting. I don't know how many ways there are to understand this sentence:

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

Neither do I. In fact, I can only think of one interpretation a person can honestly reach. We are empiricists. There are many ways in which you can use your senses to observe that the Earth is flat. The statement comes nowhere near to your allegation that "FE thinking" proposes that we should rely on our senses in situations where this would be inconclusive, or that we should dismiss all other evidence. That contradiction, once again, really flies in the face of your explanation of "whoopsie I just spat out several paragraphs of disingenuous accusations based on untruths, but they were all accidents!"

Indeed, you previously quoted a larger part of this paragraph, including this bit which renders your interpretation impossible:

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.

Whoopsie! You totes accidentally 100% forgot to include a crucial part of the quote when asking for an interpretation. I bet that was totally a simple mistake and not yet another transparent attempt at misleading your audience. How clumsy, tee-hee!

Of course, if you had no intention of misleading people, you would also make an effort to amend your statements and apologise. Then again, you probably just accidentally forgot basic human decency.

[AATW]

You're still running with shouting "Liar, liar, liar!" till you're hoarse, eh?
Fair enough.
Ultimately the only person who knows my intentions is me. I have not tried to deceive anyone ergo I have not lied. I've already conceded that it was sloppy to include a quote out of context from a satirist BUT that quote does align with the quote from your FAQ so I don't think that requires a big mea culpa.
Looking back, I do agree that this statement

the FE mentality seems to be "the horizon looks flat, ergo the earth is flat"

Is an over-statement. Although I've seen that sort of thing a million times from FE people I agree it does not represent the totality of FE thinking. But "the world looks flat" is literally an example of what your FAQ states is an example of the "simplest" evidence for a flat earth. You say:

There are many ways in which you can use your senses to observe that the Earth is flat.

Are there? OK. Why then does your FAQ, when talking about using your senses, list things 3 which are not evidence of a flat earth?

"The world looks flat" - This is not evidence for any particular shape of the earth so long as the earth is of sufficient size.

"The bottoms of clouds are flat" - I suspect this one isn't even true and have no idea how this would have any bearing on what shape the earth is.

"The movement of the sun" - What is that evidence for with regards to the shape of the earth? At best it's evidence of a static earth and a moving sun, but the way the sun moves you can't tell if it's the sun or the earth moving, they would look identical so it's not evidence of that either.

And literally the next sentence is:

these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world.

to which my response is. No they aren't. And then it says:

This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses.

That does imply an over-reliance on your senses to determine things which was and remains my exact point.
You cannot perceive horizon dip, you can measure it. The entire page about horizon dip is just stating that the horizon stays at eye level and provides no evidence, it just states it as fact. The closest it comes to providing any evidence is this quote:

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles

Which is hardly a controlled experiment, it doesn't claim any measurements were taken and I've highlighted the word which is the slight weakness in the argument. No actual experiments are outlined and the only one suggested is looking at a simulated 3D game.

So. While I concede that "The world looks flat ergo it is flat" is not the totality of FE thought I'd suggest it is part of the evidence often used and shouldn't be for the reasons I've outlined.

[timterroo]

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the general approach of FE theory is empiricism, which relies on your senses to ascertain (and to make sense) of your surroundings. I'm pretty sure "It looks flat", is an argument used by FEers, but certainly not used as absolute proof that the earth is flat. "It looks flat" is simply an empirical observation similar to "the sky looks blue".

Is this a fair assessment? 

[totallackey]

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.

It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.

If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):

there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and winessed the appearance of a kangaroo.

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 bottoms of clouds are not always flat:

but for the most part, they are.

You are correct I believe as far as what impact this does or not have in terms of earth shape.

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).

UA is not a core belief of FE.

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.

I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.

[timterroo]

I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.

You have? Can you provide your parameters for the experiment, and how you accomplished measuring the altitude of the sun?

[Dr Van Nostrand]

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.

It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.

If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):

there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and winessed the appearance of a kangaroo.

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 bottoms of clouds are not always flat:

but for the most part, they are.

You are correct I believe as far as what impact this does or not have in terms of earth shape.

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).

UA is not a core belief of FE.

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.

I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.

I'd have no problem accepting your evidence that you photographed a kangaroo unless you tried to tell me it was an alligator, a fish or a hyper-intelligent alien being from another dimension.

A bag inflated with hydrogen gas looks empty unless we move beyond our senses. The world looks flat unless we move beyond our senses.

We don't have the capacity to sense every aspect of the world around us.

Doesn't it seem arrogant to think that any one of us can comprehend all of reality by looking out a window?

[AATW]

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.

It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.

If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):

there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and witnessed the appearance of a kangaroo.

This is true, but that's because I know what kangaroos look like and I agree that sure looks like one.
But if you showed me a picture of a line and asked me what shape that line is part of I'd have to say I don't know.
It could be a section of one long line, it could be part of a square, it could be a section of a very large circle.
It doesn't rule out a flat earth but neither is it evidence "for" it.
The correct analogy would be you saying you saw a kangaroo but it was a long way away and your camera zoom sucks so you show me a photo of a fuzzy grey dot. I might believe it could be a kangaroo but I wouldn't say it's evidence on its own for your sighting of one. But neither does it rule out that you could have seen one.

[edby]

If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either. You have to trust your senses first before you can trust an instrument, not the other way around. It sounds like you RE'ers need to be in better tune with your own bodies before you go around pointing devices at things  that apparently just tell you whatever you want your reality to be.

Once again, probably for the third time, you need to beware of phrases like ‘my senses aren't trustworthy’. There are exactly three possibilities.

(1) The senses are always trustworthy
(2) The senses are never trustworthy
(3) The senses are sometimes trustworthy

We can clearly rule out (1), given examples like the stick in the water that looks bent but feels straight. The stick is either straight or not, so either sight or touch is deceiving me, ergo sense is not always trustworthy. We can rule out (2) by the same example. For my senses are correctly informing me that sense is not always trustworthy, ergo etc. Hence (3) must be true. And as I said above, we can then use our theory of reality to inform sense perception. But a theory is absolutely necessary.

So your inference 'If my senses aren't trustworthy, then they aren't trustworthy with an instrument either' is not valid. It is valid if the senses are always untrustworthy, i.e. if (2) is true. But that is false.