[Wes]

This poll is for those who believe in a flat Earth. Thank you.

[Particle Person]

Many members of FES are agnostic or atheists. Some of us like to argue tediously about whether those two terms are mutually exclusive. We also don't like circular logic (or globular logic, as I like to call it), so I suspect the third option will be popular.

[Wes]

I'm hoping those who don't believe the Earth is flat not answer. I'm wanting to get a sense of where people who do believe are coming from.

[Ghost of V]

Observable evidence.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Observable evidence.

Also,

I'm hoping those who don't believe the Earth is flat not answer. I'm wanting to get a sense of where people who do believe are coming from.

I have a feeling that won't happen.

[alex]

What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?

[Benjamin Franklin]

What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?

I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.

[alex]

I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.

I agree with that. But one has to be careful to draw conclusions from observations.

For example I observe that it is raining, and the streets get wet. This does not mean that if the streets get wet it is raining.  There is maybe just a pipe burst.

Or for example, I see my colleague at work, and I conclude he exists. It does not mean that if I cannot see my colleague he does not exist. Or that other people do not exist, although I never saw them. I never saw Barack Obama with my own eyes, this does not mean he does not exist.

Or, for example, I see the world around me flat. This does not mean that the whole world is flat. Maybe its just because I am small and the world is so huge...

[Ghost of V]

Or for example, I see my colleague at work, and I conclude he exists. It does not mean that if I cannot see my colleague he does not exist.

How do you know?

[alex]

Yes, you are right. Maybe you do not exist. Maybe I am the only entity in existance, and all around me is a kind of simulation...

However, to assume all around me is not real I need to settle with some basic believes:
1. I exist in a physical form called 'human'
2. People around me are real and exists too
3. The world around me exists as I can perceive it (see, hear, smell, ...)

Without those basic assumptions there is no need to do anything. Just jump from a building, as nothing exists! However, if you do not believe other people are real, why responding to questions and comments in the first place in this Forum?

[Ghost of V]

Yes, you are right. Maybe you do not exist. Maybe I am the only entity in existance, and all around me is a kind of simulation...

However, to assume all around me is not real I need to settle with some basic believes:
1. I exist in a physical form called 'human'
2. People around me are real and exists too
3. The world around me exists as I can perceive it (see, hear, smell, ...)

Without those basic assumptions there is no need to do anything. Just jump from a building, as nothing exists! However, if you do not believe other people are real, why responding to questions and comments in the first place in this Forum?

It is a good thought, but ultimately you are making some serious assumptions about the world around you. All I assume is that I experience something, and I piece it together as it happens. This is why observational evidence is key. It's the zetetic method in action.

But like you said, I could live in a simulation... in that case, nothing matters? But why? Everything matters equally to me, even if I live in a simulation. How would I know the difference? For life as we know it is little more than a grand simulation.  Is it not, young Alex?

No I did not just take a hit.

[alex]

Great; even if life is a simulation, why not assume the most simple logistic explanations of things around us?

If its a simulation, the shape or size of earth does not matter in anyway.
If it is NOT a simulation, there must be things you do not see. Like atoms. I never seen an atom myself, but taking all observations, books, reports, scneitific achievements there is no reason to doubt in atoms.


Either way: Your basic argument ("It looks flat") does not hold.

How old do you think I am?

[AMann]

How is the poll going?

My answer is not up there, so I am not participating

[alex]

Me neither...

[Tom]

What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?

Science is based on observations and hypotheses.

[alex]

... and experiments!

[Dog]

What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?

I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.

It is a part of the experiment portion of the scientific method. Another equally large part of the scientific method is repetition. If you perform an experiment and use a simple observation to conclude your results yes that is valid, but get ready to feel the heat as more rigorous experiments are done on the same subject.

[Tom]

... and experiments!

.... and numbers!

[Thork]

This should be in complete nonsense. When you set a survey that doesn't complete until 3 months later, who is going to be still reading the thread to observe the results? The OP himself is statistically likely not to be around then with such a low post count.

[dave]

I believe in the FET because the Vatican burned people at the stake for not believing it.