[Ecthelion]

My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

I don't believe you. You do not actually have a blank spot in your mind where "shape of the earth" goes, that's impossible. You can compartmentalize your beliefs and not think about the question directly. You can claim to yourself that you don't know. But in the end, you do have a best guess. If you are forced to make a decision that is in any way based on "shape of the earth" as a prerequisite, you will assume something.

There is no agnosticism in science. There is a reason that Occam's razor is part of the scientific method and it's that: You cannot simply leave blank spots in your theory of the outside world. Because if you want to reason, you need to have an unbroken chain of deduction from the conclusion to the premises, and you cannot do that when you have blank spots. And via those chains of reasoning, a single blank spot would necessarily spread and invalidate all your assumptions on anything outside of yourself.

By the way, how do you figure you could be 100% sure if you saw something with your own eyes? If you are willing to distrust literally everything else, why would your own senses be exempt from that? It is well known that senses can be fooled.

What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world

Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.

PS. Whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I haven't stayed in touch and want to know when they are going to send people up into space, those people should know the truth.

Not sure about Virgin Galactic specifically, but commercial space travel is coming closer with a serious of successful testflights of reusable rockets the past months.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

I don't believe you. You do not actually have a blank spot in your mind where "shape of the earth" goes, that's impossible. You can compartmentalize your beliefs and not think about the question directly. You can claim to yourself that you don't know. But in the end, you do have a best guess. If you are forced to make a decision that is in any way based on "shape of the earth" as a prerequisite, you will assume something.

There is no agnosticism in science. There is a reason that Occam's razor is part of the scientific method and it's that: You cannot simply leave blank spots in your theory of the outside world. Because if you want to reason, you need to have an unbroken chain of deduction from the conclusion to the premises, and you cannot do that when you have blank spots. And via those chains of reasoning, a single blank spot would necessarily spread and invalidate all your assumptions on anything outside of yourself.

By the way, how do you figure you could be 100% sure if you saw something with your own eyes? If you are willing to distrust literally everything else, why would your own senses be exempt from that? It is well known that senses can be fooled.

What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world

Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.

PS. Whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I haven't stayed in touch and want to know when they are going to send people up into space, those people should know the truth.

Not sure about Virgin Galactic specifically, but commercial space travel is coming closer with a serious of successful testflights of reusable rockets the past months.

Science is agnosticism. It isn't a system of incontrovertible proof. It continuously revises itself, based on the best available data. If that isn't a working definition of "not sure" I don't know what is.

Why would I be forced to make an assumption about the shape of the earth? What bearing does it have on my day to day life? If I was to guess, based on perception alone, I would say it feels flat... The same thing thousands of generations thought before the advent of the heliocentric globe model and all the contradictions and compromises that came with that. Regardless you can't dictate to anyone else what they can or cannot decide to be uncertain about. As I've said before, if the heliocentric globe was proven beyond all reasonable doubt would this society exist?

You misquoted me, I didn't say anything about virgin galactic, but spacex is basically just one of another independent companies sucked into servitude of government contracts and the military industrial complex. There will be no independent space travel, or space tourism. Ever.

[Ecthelion]

Science is agnosticism. It isn't a system of incontrovertible proof. It continuously revises itself, based on the best available data. If that isn't a working definition of "not sure" I don't know what is.

If you phrase it like that then yes, science isn't ever completely "sure" of anything. But that's different from agnosticism, which, despite the word not having a proper definition, generally means "not knowing". Science is all about knowledge. Not monolithic and immutable knowledge, but knowledge none the less.

Why would I be forced to make an assumption about the shape of the earth? What bearing does it have on my day to day life?

I did say you can compartmentalize and simply not think about the question.

If I was to guess, based on perception alone, I would say it feels flat... The same thing thousands of generations thought before the advent of the heliocentric globe model and all the contradictions and compromises that came with that. Regardless you can't dictate to anyone else what they can or cannot decide to be uncertain about. As I've said before, if the heliocentric globe was proven beyond all reasonable doubt would this society exist?

So you do have a best guess, as I expected. Obviously I cannot dictate what you can and cannot think, but based on the assumption that all humans have the same basic capacity of rational thinking, I can conclude that you cannot simply leave a blank spot in your picture of the world. People will always assume something, even if it's just an exotic "dark matter" with no clearly defined attributes.

As to the globe being proven, you have already correctly stated that science doesn't supply incontrovertible proof. I am reasonably sure that a court would rule the shape of the earth to be beyond reasonable doubt though, so yes, this society does exist despite all evidence.

You misquoted me, I didn't say anything about virgin galactic, but spacex is basically just one of another independent companies sucked into servitude of government contracts and the military industrial complex. There will be no independent space travel, or space tourism. Ever.

Sorry about that, a mishap while copy-pasting the quote tags. It's good to know that, despite claiming to be agnostic about the shape of the earth, you have a very firm idea of what is and isn't possible with regards to leaving it .

[geckothegeek]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

So, what IS the shape of the earth?
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!

So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!

What about a little consistence in your position?

I'm definitely not an atheist, I have an entire thread in the philosophy and religion forum about how creation pertains to flat earth theory. I'll regret telling you about it because I'm sure you'll go in there itching to knock down every point I've made.

My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

One suggestion. Join the Navy if your country has a Navy. Then you will have plenty of opportunities for "personal experience" to observe for yourself that the earth is a globe. And  plenty of opportunities to observe for yourself how fallacious all those "ideas" that flat-earthers call "flat earth theory" are !

A lot of we "round earthers" have studied enough things such as cartography to be dangerous. LOL.
At least we know a little about how maps are made of which apparently "flat earthers" know nothing.

At least in my line of work you never stop studying and you never stop learning. I'm sure this is true in any line of work.

[AceAzure]

Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.

Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world. And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.

As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.

[Ecthelion]

Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world.

I disagree. Care to give me some examples?

And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.

I agree that it's utter bull and speculation to assume that there are secret theories behind every other known scientific theory and that it's the secret theories that do the predictions. Or was that not what you meant? I cannot quite make the connection between your first and second sentence here.
What is your basis for people in universities thinking they "know it all". How could the government be sure no-one tried the theory? What about all the actual engineers who use the theories in their everyday jobs? Are they all in on the conspiracy so they get the "true" theory?

And science itself is final. There is no alternative to the scientific method. The body of knowledge it generates is indeed always evolving.

As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Tesla said it, so it must be true. I am sure there are problems with the scientific community where theories are speculated just to publish something. But on the whole, prediction still pan out, so obviously the structures do have some relation to reality.

Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.

There is a weird tendency here to value direct observation above everything else. How is it that all photos, videos, witness reports etc. can easily be dismissed as fake, but seeing it once with your eyes would be absolute proof?

[AceAzure]

Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world.

I disagree. Care to give me some examples?

And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.

I agree that it's utter bull and speculation to assume that there are secret theories behind every other known scientific theory and that it's the secret theories that do the predictions. Or was that not what you meant? I cannot quite make the connection between your first and second sentence here.
What is your basis for people in universities thinking they "know it all". How could the government be sure no-one tried the theory? What about all the actual engineers who use the theories in their everyday jobs? Are they all in on the conspiracy so they get the "true" theory?

And science itself is final. There is no alternative to the scientific method. The body of knowledge it generates is indeed always evolving.

As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Tesla said it, so it must be true. I am sure there are problems with the scientific community where theories are speculated just to publish something. But on the whole, prediction still pan out, so obviously the structures do have some relation to reality.

Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.

There is a weird tendency here to value direct observation above everything else. How is it that all photos, videos, witness reports etc. can easily be dismissed as fake, but seeing it once with your eyes would be absolute proof?

I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.

Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?

That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...

Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?

PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world

Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.

By the way, what the hell does metaphysically sound mean?

Not sure about Virgin Galactic specifically, but commercial space travel is coming closer with a serious of successful testflights of reusable rockets the past months.

Please continue to hold your breath in the regard. Where are the successful test flights again?

[Ecthelion]

I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.

Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?

That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...

Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.

If you look at science from the perspective of philosophy, it's obvious that it's knowledge can never be complete. But scientists aren't generally philosophers, so one cannot exactly blame them for not always realizing this. People say absurd things like "the universe runs on math", not because they are stupid or ignorant but because they look at the world only through the lens of empirical reality, but don't consider how that reality is formed in the first place. Nothing empirical will ever be 100% accurate, but it will still be the best guess and it will still work for predictions, which is all that is required.

Anyways, where does the FE fit in any of this? Many FE theorists don't even believe in science in the first place, and the limits of the scientific method certainly don't support the conclusion that the earth may be flat.

Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?

PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.

I feel you. I get this discussion a lot from my parents as well. They always ate meat and they turned out alright, and experimenting is dangerous and this is very good meat etc. etc.

By the way, what the hell does metaphysically sound mean?

Metaphysics is a subset of philosophy that deals with the nature of the physical. It's metaphysically sound in that the scientific method can be deduced from a-priori truths about our existence, namely that our consciousness exists and is affected by something outside of it.

Please continue to hold your breath in the regard. Where are the successful test flights again?

Blue Origin had another successful test a few days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/02/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-third-rocket-landing

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.

Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)

Our interpretation and understanding of what the Sun actually is evolves over time through observation and experimentation. Knowledge is the practically the documentation of that process. Of course new methods of observation and measurement inevitably arise, and the old "knowledge" is either scrapped, revised, or retrofitted.

One problem, of course, is there will obviously be a generational gap between what was taught to those prior and what modern opinion is. Another problem is knowledge being mistaken for truth. While being taught something throughout your life through schools, universities, charismatic individuals etc, you have no reason to question the validity of what you're being taught. In fact, you are actively conditioned, consciously and subconsciously, to conform and accept rather than to question or debate.

Anyone who ever has made a radical, breakthrough discovery wasn't a conformist. Einstein, whom so many worship, apparently was a terrible student. What I observe here, however, is an absolute shaming of those who go against the grain, and against the status quo, if you will, of modern science. I often see the psychological disorder known as confirmation bias incorrectly thrown around here, but maybe a lot of those same amateur psychologists should learn about another phenomenon, known as conformity bias, as well.

Conformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.

Blue Origin had another successful test a few days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/02/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-third-rocket-landing

Good news I guess, does this mean I will get same minute delivery one day through Amazon?

[AceAzure]

I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.

Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?

That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...

Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.

If you look at science from the perspective of philosophy, it's obvious that it's knowledge can never be complete. But scientists aren't generally philosophers, so one cannot exactly blame them for not always realizing this. People say absurd things like "the universe runs on math", not because they are stupid or ignorant but because they look at the world only through the lens of empirical reality, but don't consider how that reality is formed in the first place. Nothing empirical will ever be 100% accurate, but it will still be the best guess and it will still work for predictions, which is all that is required.

Anyways, where does the FE fit in any of this? Many FE theorists don't even believe in science in the first place, and the limits of the scientific method certainly don't support the conclusion that the earth may be flat.

Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?

PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.

I feel you. I get this discussion a lot from my parents as well. They always ate meat and they turned out alright, and experimenting is dangerous and this is very good meat etc. etc.

Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.

Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.

That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped. 

Btw your parents seem nice compared to him, he is from the military, so you know how strict they are. I'm just lucky I can get away eating fish when I'm with him :/

[AceAzure]

Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.

Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)

Our interpretation and understanding of what the Sun actually is evolves over time through observation and experimentation. Knowledge is the practically the documentation of that process. Of course new methods of observation and measurement inevitably arise, and the old "knowledge" is either scrapped, revised, or retrofitted.

One problem, of course, is there will obviously be a generational gap between what was taught to those prior and what modern opinion is. Another problem is knowledge being mistaken for truth. While being taught something throughout your life through schools, universities, charismatic individuals etc, you have no reason to question the validity of what you're being taught. In fact, you are actively conditioned, consciously and subconsciously, to conform and accept rather than to question or debate.

Anyone who ever has made a radical, breakthrough discovery wasn't a conformist. Einstein, whom so many worship, apparently was a terrible student. What I observe here, however, is an absolute shaming of those who go against the grain, and against the status quo, if you will, of modern science. I often see the psychological disorder known as confirmation bias incorrectly thrown around here, but maybe a lot of those same amateur psychologists should learn about another phenomenon, known as conformity bias, as well.

Conformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.

Blue Origin had another successful test a few days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/02/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-third-rocket-landing

Good news I guess, does this mean I will get same minute delivery one day through Amazon?

Exactly. That's why I'm here in the first place. I'm here to give the flat earth theory a fair shot and I'm not giving up on it just yet. (even tho I don't believe it fully after this thread)

Just like Steve Jobs said -- the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.

I question everything about the world and try my hardest to be different and challenge existing systems implemented in the world. I.e. are they REALLY the way to go?

Will never ever change.

[Ecthelion]

Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)

If that is the definition of the truth, then empirical truth (i.e. truth about the outside world) doesn't exist. Which would make the word redundant and hence I don't use it that way.

The theory "the sun exist" has no special epistemological standing. It's just as subject to change as anything else. How do you know the sun exists? Are you aware of the problem of infinite regression?

Our interpretation and understanding of what the Sun actually is evolves over time through observation and experimentation. Knowledge is the practically the documentation of that process. Of course new methods of observation and measurement inevitably arise, and the old "knowledge" is either scrapped, revised, or retrofitted.

One of these refinements was quantum physics, according to which the sun indeed does not "exist" in the traditional understanding but rather is just a wave function that happened to factorize. According to science, even our illusion of the physical world is illusion.

One problem, of course, is there will obviously be a generational gap between what was taught to those prior and what modern opinion is. Another problem is knowledge being mistaken for truth. While being taught something throughout your life through schools, universities, charismatic individuals etc, you have no reason to question the validity of what you're being taught. In fact, you are actively conditioned, consciously and subconsciously, to conform and accept rather than to question or debate.

Knwoledge and truth are different ways of looking at a fact. Knowing means that you have reason to believe it, truth means that what you believe actually represents what is really there.

Anyone who ever has made a radical, breakthrough discovery wasn't a conformist. Einstein, whom so many worship, apparently was a terrible student. What I observe here, however, is an absolute shaming of those who go against the grain, and against the status quo, if you will, of modern science. I often see the psychological disorder known as confirmation bias incorrectly thrown around here, but maybe a lot of those same amateur psychologists should learn about another phenomenon, known as conformity bias, as well.

Conformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.

Being a non-conformist is not the same as not applying proper methodology. You can go against accepted knowledge all you want, but if you go against the theory of knowledge itself, you'll end up with wrong results. From a false premise, arbitrary results can be generated.

Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.

Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.

I get that you think the "elites" keep power for themselves (they most certainly do), but do you also realize just how much knowledge is freely available? I mean you can go right now and read the philosophers of the enlightenment, I recommend Hume and then Kant. You can find out how science works by yourself from that, and will be much better equipped to tell truth from falsehoods. Also there is the so called "methods of rationality", which show common misconceptions and how to test your beliefs. There's a lot of resources out there, no-one has to just believe what they are told.

That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped. 

Well there is the photo taken from the moon. That's not a composite image, but of course also not very detailed. Getting a camera big enough to make a full size image of the earth into space would be rather hard, wouldn't it? Why the effort, to convince like 20 people on an internet forum?

[AceAzure]

Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.

Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.

I get that you think the "elites" keep power for themselves (they most certainly do), but do you also realize just how much knowledge is freely available? I mean you can go right now and read the philosophers of the enlightenment, I recommend Hume and then Kant. You can find out how science works by yourself from that, and will be much better equipped to tell truth from falsehoods. Also there is the so called "methods of rationality", which show common misconceptions and how to test your beliefs. There's a lot of resources out there, no-one has to just believe what they are told.

That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped. 

Well there is the photo taken from the moon. That's not a composite image, but of course also not very detailed. Getting a camera big enough to make a full size image of the earth into space would be rather hard, wouldn't it? Why the effort, to convince like 20 people on an internet forum?

There is truth in the world yes, but my point wasn't for myself. The point is, many people in the world are kept in the dark and they would be subject to the mind control in the world right now. And they won't want to open their eyes and think conspiracy people are lunatics, watch news every day and take everything they see in media for granted. Slowly but surely more and more are waking up though.

Regarding your philosophy thing I guess I'm always more of a believer of Zen than any scientific philosophies. My fav philosopher is Alan Watts. However they are interesting and I did search them up a bit. The Hume philosophy seems too inhumane for me.

Link me to the photo you talked about please. I'm sure there's a lot of moon photos having the Earth. The problem is, they have faked and PS'ed photos before... so what makes you think it's not a photoshop?

[Ecthelion]

There is truth in the world yes, but my point wasn't for myself. The point is, many people in the world are kept in the dark and they would be subject to the mind control in the world right now.

Are you refering to people in Third World countries in Africa or Asia, or under censoring regimes like Russia or China? Because if people are in the dark in Europe or the US, it's predominantly out of their own volition, and the only mind control is the mind control they allow.

And they won't want to open their eyes and think conspiracy people are lunatics, watch news every day and take everything they see in media for granted. Slowly but surely more and more are waking up though.

Not believing anyting you see in the media is just as flawed as believing everything. The way to gather information is by consulting different sources. The problem with conspiracy theories is that most of them are not based on rational analysis, and as such attract believers which aren't quite rational themselves.

Regarding your philosophy thing I guess I'm always more of a believer of Zen than any scientific philosophies. My fav philosopher is Alan Watts. However they are interesting and I did search them up a bit. The Hume philosophy seems too inhumane for me.

It is true that the philosophy I refer to is much different to the picture I get from Alan Watts based on some short summaries. It's a philosophy that deals more with what is true and what we should do, and less with how to live a happy life and find meaning. Both have merits, but for someone who actually seeks the truth, knowing what truth and knowledge are in the first place is obviously important.

Link me to the photo you talked about please. I'm sure there's a lot of moon photos having the Earth. The problem is, they have faked and PS'ed photos before... so what makes you think it's not a photoshop?

There's a bunch of pictures on this site:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2380085/Earth-aliens-eye-view-How-planet-looks-different-perspective-far-far-away.html

It doesn't actually matter if I think the photo is fake or genuine. For one, you only asked me about the photo existing, and it does. Secondly, that the photo exists is an observation in it's own right. This observation is, on it's face, evidence for the photo being genuine. Unless I have additional observations that suggests the photo is faked, the simplest theory that explains the evidence is that the photo is genuine.

This is what a lot of people seem to get wrong: Confusing the explnation, the theory with the observation itself. I observe that my mind tells me there is a photo. I observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine. I observe that my mind tells me I have seen and read lots of other reports about space travel happening. The obvious explanation for all these observations is that space travel is happening. Another explanation is that there is a huge conspiracy that has faked all these things. Another is that I live in the matrix and the machines have sent this information to my brain. Now I have to apply Occam's razor to figure out which theory explains the observations with the least special pleading. This is the difficult part. But if I were to simply dismiss the observations first hand as "fake" everytime, I wouldn't even get here. I'd just reinforce my own bias and never allow myself to actually think the hard question.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.

However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.

The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.

It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.

[BlueMoon]

Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.

However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.

The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.

It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.

If you go looking for evidence of a conspiracy, you will find it.  Your mind will point seek patterns that don't exist.  That's pareidolia.  It doesn't matter if it's true or not; if you research a topic with a preconceived idea of how it is, your mind will inflate supporting evidence and ignore conflicting evidence.  That's confirmation bias.  It is better to remain vigilant, weigh both sides fairly, and only then come to a conclusion. 

[AceAzure]

It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.

He doesn't even know about the brainwashing that's taking place in 1st world countries so I don't think your reply would sink in.

Are you refering to people in Third World countries in Africa or Asia, or under censoring regimes like Russia or China? Because if people are in the dark in Europe or the US, it's predominantly out of their own volition, and the only mind control is the mind control they allow.

Not believing anyting you see in the media is just as flawed as believing everything. The way to gather information is by consulting different sources. The problem with conspiracy theories is that most of them are not based on rational analysis, and as such attract believers which aren't quite rational themselves.

Yeah I don't think you know what's really going on in the world right now haha. Perhaps learn about Subliminal messages that are being programmed into today's children's shows.   

Don't get me started on the media haha. You're right in that you should consult different sources, but I would really never trust the media on TV for example. (Again see other videos about the subject) Conspiracy theories are mostly based on rational ideas and a heap of evidence to support them or there simply won't be this much debate over them. It's not my task to change your mind so I won't say anymore regarding this.

There's a bunch of pictures on this site:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2380085/Earth-aliens-eye-view-How-planet-looks-different-perspective-far-far-away.html

Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.





larger image link: http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png

The amount of error in the edges in terms of JPEG compression do not match up as you can see, while they should be the same. Obviously not.

So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).

I observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.

Lol.

It doesn't actually matter if I think the photo is fake or genuine. For one, you only asked me about the photo existing, and it does. Secondly, that the photo exists is an observation in it's own right. This observation is, on it's face, evidence for the photo being genuine. Unless I have additional observations that suggests the photo is faked, the simplest theory that explains the evidence is that the photo is genuine.

It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.

However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.

The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.

It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.

If you go looking for evidence of a conspiracy, you will find it.  Your mind will point seek patterns that don't exist.  That's pareidolia.  It doesn't matter if it's true or not; if you research a topic with a preconceived idea of how it is, your mind will inflate supporting evidence and ignore conflicting evidence.  That's confirmation bias.  It is better to remain vigilant, weigh both sides fairly, and only then come to a conclusion.

Are you projecting any of that onto me? I hope not. There's a fine line between vigilance and paranoia, obviously. But I'm not sure if you somehow read my comments as those of a raving foaming at the mouth lunatic or as someone who encourages rational, critical skepticism.

You can not find a conspiracy in anything. And sometimes a conspiracy is so obvious you don't even have to look for it. I'm glad you got to try out your cursory knowledge of psychology to make a diagnosis... but I implore you to look into conformity bias as well if you insist on doing so.

[Ecthelion]

Yeah I don't think you know what's really going on in the world right now haha. Perhaps learn about Subliminal messages that are being programmed into today's children's shows.   

Don't get me started on the media haha. You're right in that you should consult different sources, but I would really never trust the media on TV for example. (Again see other videos about the subject)

So, you don't trust "the media on TV", but you do trust Youtube videos? You specifically believe a video that states that frames that allude to sex, or have the word "sex" written in them are "highly sexualized" and "corrupt the world's children"? How exactly does that work?

It's a familiar phenomenon: "I don't believe any media, except these people on youtube". Maybe it's the youtube videos that are controlled and brainwashing you? Maybe the government is secretly controlling all the conspiracy theorists? How does your approach allow you to discern truth from falsehood?

That you think your position is so superior that my ignorance is outright laughable to you isn't making you any more convincing, by the way.

Conspiracy theories are mostly based on rational ideas and a heap of evidence to support them or there simply won't be this much debate over them. It's not my task to change your mind so I won't say anymore regarding this.

That's not a convincing argument.

Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.

So the fact that you tried and failed to find a fault in the majority of the pictures is now supposed to be proof that they are all faked? That's a curious leap of logic.

So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).

Which means you are excluding an entire category of observations with no argument other than that it suits your preconceived ideas.

I observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.

Lol.

It seems that I did not quite manage to explain. Could you tell me what you find funny about this?

It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.

Which would then be a new observation I have to take into account. But I cannot possibly ever do all the tests. There is always an alternative theory, the number of possible tests is infinite. Your simple test only indicated fault in a single image. So why do we assume forgery when the observations don't support that assumption? Isn't that the opposite of looking for the truth?