Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.The problem with this is that our explanations of different phenomena have to be mutually consistent. We don’t just want to explain observation A; we also want to explain observations B, C, D, E, F,…, infinity. And if our explanations aren’t consistent with one another, then at least one of them must be false.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?Again, the best explanation for the reports of space exploration, satellites, photos from space, etc., is the one that is the most consistent with our other explanations of what we observe and experience. For example, it should be consistent with how we explain some personal observations of mine that can be replicated by anyone who will visit my university:
A relatively simple one would be for them to mount an expedition to the ice wall to perform mapping and measurement documentation.
A relatively simple one would be for them to mount an expedition to the ice wall to perform mapping and measurement documentation.
>simple
Literally what?
See? Simple.Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:
See? Simple.Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:
- Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
- Walk to the moon
- Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is
Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!
See? Simple.Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:
- Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
- Walk to the moon
- Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is
Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!
See? Simple.Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:
- Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
- Walk to the moon
- Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is
Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!
VENDÉE GLOBE SOLO, NON STOP AND WITHOUT ASSISTANCEFrom: Vendee Globe 2016-2017 Presentation (http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/presentation)
The Vendée Globe is still the only non-stop solo round the world race without assistance. The event was created in the spirit of the Golden Globe, which was in 1968 the first non-stop solo round the world race via the three capes (Good Hope, Leeuwin and the Horn). Out of the nine pioneers, who set sail in 1968, only one made it back to Falmouth on 6th April 1969 after 313 days at sea, the British sailor, Robin Knox-Johnston. Sir Robin Knox-Johnston thus became the first sailor to sail alone around the world without stopping…
Twenty years later, the French sailor Philippe Jeantot, following on from his two wins in the BOC Challenge (the solo round the world race with stopovers), came up with the idea of a new solo round the world race, but this time a non-stop race. The Globe Challenge was born, and a few editions later this became the Vendée Globe. On 26th November 1989, thirteen sailors set off in this first edition, which would last more than three months. Only seven made it back to les Sables d’Olonne.
Since then, the first seven editions of what the public refers to as the Everest of the seas, have enabled 138 sailors to line up at the start of the Vendée Globe, while only 71 have managed to cross the finishing line. This figure alone expresses the huge difficulty of this global event, where sailors face icy cold conditions, mountainous waves and leaden skies in the Southern Ocean. The Vendée Globe is above all a voyage to the ends of the sea and deep down into the sailor’s soul. It has been won by some of the greatest names in sailing: Titouan Lamazou, Alain Gautier, Christophe Auguin, Vincent Riou and François Gabart. Only one sailor has won it twice: Michel Desjoyeaux, in 2001 and 2009. The race record is held by François Gabart with a time of 78 days.
The eighth Vendée Globe will set sail from les Sables d’Olonne on Sunday 6th November 2016.
So....I propose an experiment one could physically do.Neither experiment is possible to accomplish in real life.
You propose an experiment that neither side believes possible.Phew. I was worried I made it sound too plausible. I almost thought you'll just sit there being like "yep, this is reasonable, let's do it". After all, you did suggest your experiment...
And YOU then laugh at ME. Riiiiiiight.I didn't laugh at you, merely your argument.
Where has anyone made such an argument?I strive to provide at least partial quotes before my replies in order to allow less attentive readers to connect the dots. Simply click the quote header above my response and you'll be taken to the relevant post.
You pick absolute stupid simply because you are scared that your Pet Pepperoni Pizza Planet might get found outWould you mind speaking English? While you're at it, could you please stop abusing formatting? It doesn't make your posts any edgier or more convincing - they're just unpleasant to read, especially when you account for the fact that people view the forum on various devices.
On 6th November 2016 a number of sailors are going to start a race sail around Antarctica:Fascinating. You seem to think that proves something, or at least provides evidence of some sort. Care to elaborate?
So wait till a bit into 2017 and you will find out whether your "Ice Wall Map" is realistic!
So the question is, which set of theories best explains all the observations that science attempts to explain: the RET set that says that this massive apparent research activity is actually being carried out, with real data being transmitted from real satellites, or the FET set of theories that features a Vast Fixed-Wing Conspiracy trying to con us into believing that space travel and exploration and satellite launches have actually taken place (no one knows how to get satellites to orbit a flat earth)? Your call.
no-one has been able to tell me exactly what "Zeteticism" is or how it works.Have you tried Googling it?
Those FET adherents that are not outright trolls don't believe in the scientific method - and by extension Occam's razor - because reasons.*sigh* - It's in the bloody OP.
I think it says a lot about your "theory" that you have to invent an entire alternative to science for your model to even have a chance. Thank god Zeteticism isn't the accepted methodology, or we would be whining about the horizon all the time instead of building satellites.no-one has been able to tell me exactly what "Zeteticism" is or how it works.Have you tried Googling it?Was that really so hard? Or are you saying that people have told you multiple times, and you simply didn't like it - because reasons (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4847.0)?
- https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism (https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism)
- http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method (http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method)
- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zetetic (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zetetic)
- http://praiseandlove.net/science-and-philosophy/flat-earth-theory/ (http://praiseandlove.net/science-and-philosophy/flat-earth-theory/)
- http://zeteticism.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://zeteticism.blogspot.co.uk/)
Those FET adherents that are not outright trolls don't believe in the scientific method - and by extension Occam's razor - because reasons.*sigh* - It's in the bloody OP.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor (http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor)
Yeah, fixing your broken system of inquiry makes us look really bad. No, seriously.
What was that about science adapting itself as new information becomes available? Why would you cling so dogmatically to a disproved system?
Was that really so hard? Or are you saying that people have told you multiple times, and you simply didn't like it - because reasons (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4847.0)?
There is a good reason why Zeteticism isn't widely practiced. The main way to prove or disprove a theory is by making predictions based on that theory, then setting up an experiment to test whether those predictions prove to be true or not. If the results of the experiment contradict the predictions, then the theory is false. If the results are consistent with the predictions, then that is evidence that the theory is correct.
A Zeteticist (is that the correct word?) can't do this. They have to generate a new theory from scratch after each and every experiment. If the same theory is generated after every experiment, then you can gain confidence that that theory is correct. However, if the theories aren't the same, there is no way to test inconsistencies between the theories. Are both theories true? Do they contradict each other? The only way to answer these questions is to make predictions based on the theories, and then test the predictions. A true Zeteticist can't do this.
It's worse than that. You flat out cannot arrive at any conclusions by just piling up information. You can never gain knowledge based on random experiments - and without a hypothesis, randomness is all you get.
Where has anyone made such an argument?I strive to provide at least partial quotes before my replies in order to allow less attentive readers to connect the dots. Simply click the quote header above my response and you'll be taken to the relevant post.
I wouldn't go quite that far. You CAN gain knowledge, to a certain extent. For example, if multiple observations happen to result in the same theory, then you can be increasingly confident in that theory. It is unreliable, but it IS possible to gain knowledge this way.
The main problem is that nothing is falsifiable. Once an observation leads to a theory, that theory can't be proven false. This leads to hundreds of weak little theories that only explain a single observation, but nothing else.
Edit: Sorry for being so pedantic. I am ashamed.
So, sorry, I did leave a couple out a couple of words and I guess you didn't like my colourful description of your idea of the earth. I fixed it with the bold bits.You pick an absolute stupid "experiment" simply because you are scared that your Flat Earth might get found outWould you mind speaking English?
Apart from a bit of excessive big bold and red text, exactly where am I "abusing formatting". I centred the picture, what else? If I don't know what bugs you I won't know how to avoid it! By the way this is done on a tablet, and all my offending post displays perfectly in both landscape and portrait. On the computer I check my posts on small windows, so where have I offended so grossly.
While you're at it, could you please stop abusing formatting? It doesn't make your posts any edgier or more convincing - they're just unpleasant to read, especially when you account for the fact that people view the forum on various devices.
Rounder's test, while not as easy as he made out it is not absolutely ridiculous like your:
Also, I take your complete lack of an actual response as a concession that Rounder's idea of "simplicity" was simply silly. Hopefully you won't waste our time with it again.
::) You don't think walking to the moon is more impossible than a voyage that is actually undertaken every few years by solo sailors! No wonder you think that the earth is flat! ::)Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!
- Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
- Walk to the moon
- Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is
Yes, actually it proves a lot! The whole point is that every few years the Vendee Globe yachting race is sailed around the course shown on the map.On 6th November 2016 a number of sailors are going to start a race sail around Antarctica. So wait till a bit into 2017 and you will find out whether your "Ice Wall Map" is realistic!Fascinating. You seem to think that proves something, or at least provides evidence of some sort. Care to elaborate?
... He gathers some Fir (a type of tree) wood and heats it by rotating a stick. A flame occurs, but no warmth, and when the flame dies there is a pile of tiny hats....
... He gathers some Fir (a type of tree) wood and heats it by rotating a stick. A flame occurs, but no warmth, and when the flame dies there is a pile of tiny hats....
Thanks Dr. Seuss.
Seriously though, this is an amazing illustration! Bonus points for the legit anagram.