Flat Earth Philosophy

They're not in any way the same thing.  You're basing your argument entirely on reason, which as Kant pointed out is deeply flawed.  I'm at least basing my argument on what I actually observe.

You're extrapolating the shape of the earth from the tiny portions you have observed. As I pointed out, this is deeply flawed.

No, you're telling me that what I observe doesn't constitute valid evidence.  That's just absurd.

No, I'm telling you that you can't extrapolate the shape of the earth, which you haven't observed, from the tiny portions that you have.

Now you're just making baseless attacks on my character.
..
That's unfortunately true, and it's exactly why I'm skeptical of the evidence people try to present as "proof" of a round Earth.

I wasn't attacking your character, I was making an observation which you appear to have confirmed.

Yes, so has the Church.
...
Yes, so have the Church's.
...
Again, so have the Church's, by many, many people.

The church's only evidence is the bible, and nobody has verified that it is the word of god.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 02:38:18 PM

They're not in any way the same thing.  You're basing your argument entirely on reason, which as Kant pointed out is deeply flawed.  I'm at least basing my argument on what I actually observe.

You're extrapolating the shape of the earth from the tiny portions you have observed. As I pointed out, this is deeply flawed.

It's the only conclusion I can logically draw from what I've directly observed.

I wasn't attacking your character, I was making an observation which you appear to have confirmed.

Wrong.  I haven't ruled out the possibility that somebody will present me with evidence that the Earth is round.  You, on the other hand, don't even seem willing to consider the possibility that the Earth is flat.  You're clearly the one being closed-minded here, not me.

The church's only evidence is the bible, and nobody has verified that it is the word of god.

The Bible contains eye-witness accounts; on what grounds do you assume they are lying?

It's the only conclusion I can logically draw from what I've directly observed.

You can't logically draw any conclusions about the shape of the earth from what you've directly observed.

Wrong.  I haven't ruled out the possibility that somebody will present me with evidence that the Earth is round.  You, on the other hand, don't even seem willing to consider the possibility that the Earth is flat.  You're clearly the one being closed-minded here, not me.

There is no evidence you would accept. Evidence has been presented on this forum. You don't accept it. You either claim it is fake, or claim it can be explained by something which cannot be proven (as shown in my example). I, on the other hand, would consider any evidence you would provide to support a flat earth. I would objectively consider what your evidence demonstrates, the reliability of the source for your evidence, and whether is can be verified by me or has been verified by other reliable sources. Some of your theories might warrant consideration if they didn't rely on the incredibly unlikely conspiracy or other extraordinary claims.

The Bible contains eye-witness accounts; on what grounds do you assume they are lying?

I am skeptical about all claims of the supernatural, not to mention that the English bible has been translated (multiple times I believe), and it has been selectively edited.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 03:48:11 PM

It's the only conclusion I can logically draw from what I've directly observed.

You can't logically draw any conclusions about the shape of the earth from what you've directly observed.

So now we're supposed to not trust anything we directly observe?  Wow, and I thought I was a skeptic.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 03:48:11 PM

Wrong.  I haven't ruled out the possibility that somebody will present me with evidence that the Earth is round.  You, on the other hand, don't even seem willing to consider the possibility that the Earth is flat.  You're clearly the one being closed-minded here, not me.

There is no evidence you would accept. Evidence has been presented on this forum. You don't accept it. You either claim it is fake, or claim it can be explained by something which cannot be proven (as shown in my example). I, on the other hand, would consider any evidence you would provide to support a flat earth. I would objectively consider what your evidence demonstrates, the reliability of the source for your evidence, and whether is can be verified by me or has been verified by other reliable sources. Some of your theories might warrant consideration if they didn't rely on the incredibly unlikely conspiracy or other extraordinary claims.

Nothing has been presented on these forums that proves conclusively that the Earth is round.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 03:48:11 PM

The Bible contains eye-witness accounts; on what grounds do you assume they are lying?

I am skeptical about all claims of the supernatural, not to mention that the English bible has been translated (multiple times I believe), and it has been selectively edited.

The general gist has been preserved.  On what basis do you reject the events in the Bible and call all the people who give eye-witness testimonies liars?  Why should we regard NASA as being above the Church Fathers?  I see the longevity of NASA thrown around as proof that they must be telling the truth.  How has the Catholic Church gotten away with duping people for almost two thousand years, then?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 02:38:18 PM

Quote

That was your philosophy that limits what evidence to draw conclusions from, not mine. In fact, your philosophy is why I called you closed-minded, and you apparently agree.

No, you're telling me that what I observe doesn't constitute valid evidence.  That's just absurd.

You can draw all the conclusions that you want.  However, you can only draw those conclusions about what you actually observe.  To apply those conclusions to anything that you can't observe would be a fallacy.  To say that the small parcel of earth that you can observe is flat could be a valid statement.  To say that rest of the earth is flat based on your observation of a small portion of the earth would be a fallacy (argument from ignorance if I'm not mistaken).

I have been all over Europe, and it always looked flat, no matter where I was, and no matter what height I observed it from. To me, all the different portions of the earth I have ever observed looked flat. If as I have argued it is necessary to give the senses primacy, then I must conclude that the earth is flat.

All parts of the earth I have seen look flat, hence I must initially conclude that it is flat until sensorial evidence is provided which contradicts this. If the curvature of the earth cannot be observed from its surface and if the senses have primacy, then I cannot place any belief in something I cannot experience sensorially such as unobservable curvature. As the earth appears flat, I can place belief in the conclusion that it is flat, unless I encounter sensorial evidence which shows that it is not flat (but at the same time does not contradict my initial observation).

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2009, 03:22:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 02:38:18 PM

Quote

That was your philosophy that limits what evidence to draw conclusions from, not mine. In fact, your philosophy is why I called you closed-minded, and you apparently agree.

No, you're telling me that what I observe doesn't constitute valid evidence.  That's just absurd.

You can draw all the conclusions that you want.  However, you can only draw those conclusions about what you actually observe.  To apply those conclusions to anything that you can't observe would be a fallacy.  To say that the small parcel of earth that you can observe is flat could be a valid statement.  To say that rest of the earth is flat based on your observation of a small portion of the earth would be a fallacy (argument from ignorance if I'm not mistaken).

I have been all over Europe, and it always looked flat, no matter where I was, and no matter what height I observed it from. To me, all the different portions of the earth I have ever observed looked flat. If as I have argued it is necessary to give the senses primacy, then I must conclude that the earth is flat.

All parts of the earth I have seen look flat, hence I must initially conclude that it is flat until sensorial evidence is provided which contradicts this. If the curvature of the earth cannot be observed from its surface and if the senses have primacy, then I cannot place any belief in something I cannot experience sensorially such as unobservable curvature. As the earth appears flat, I can place belief in the conclusion that it is flat, unless I encounter sensorial evidence which shows that it is not flat (but at the same time does not contradict my initial observation).

How can you logically conclude the shape of the earth by looking at a small part of it?
You only look at a small part each time, even if you are in China or in Russia.
In my head, this is not logical.

The curvature can be observed if you go high enough. There are numerous of pictures on the net you
can have a look at.

How can you logically conclude the shape of the earth by looking at a small part of it?
You only look at a small part each time, even if you are in China or in Russia.
In my head, this is not logical.

The curvature can be observed if you go high enough. There are numerous of pictures on the net you
can have a look at.

I conclude this because it's all I can conclude, until I have sensorial evidence to the contrary. And pictures do not constitute sensorial evidence. Based on what I can observe, I must conclude the earth is flat if I accept the primacy of the senses.

So now we're supposed to not trust anything we directly observe?  Wow, and I thought I was a skeptic.

You didn't directly observe anything which indicated the shape of the entire earth. You only observed tiny, insignificant portions of the earth. Write this on a post-it and stick it to your monitor so I don't have to remind you after ever post.

Nothing has been presented on these forums that proves conclusively that the Earth is round.

Perhaps because nothing could possibly fit your definition of conclusive proof, which is why you are close-minded and dishonest when repeatedly saying you are open to RET evidence.

The general gist has been preserved.  On what basis do you reject the events in the Bible and call all the people who give eye-witness testimonies liars?  Why should we regard NASA as being above the Church Fathers?  I see the longevity of NASA thrown around as proof that they must be telling the truth.  How has the Catholic Church gotten away with duping people for almost two thousand years, then?

There is plenty of real evidence (HD video, photographs, satellite signals, observable satellites, collected samples and data) to support NASA. The church has nothing but ancient text, some (most?) of which is hearsay, which has been translated and edited to fit the narrative which they are trying to preach. People believe because they were brainwashed and/or they want to believe (have faith).

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2009, 03:22:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2009, 02:38:18 PM

Quote

That was your philosophy that limits what evidence to draw conclusions from, not mine. In fact, your philosophy is why I called you closed-minded, and you apparently agree.

No, you're telling me that what I observe doesn't constitute valid evidence.  That's just absurd.

You can draw all the conclusions that you want.  However, you can only draw those conclusions about what you actually observe.  To apply those conclusions to anything that you can't observe would be a fallacy.  To say that the small parcel of earth that you can observe is flat could be a valid statement.  To say that rest of the earth is flat based on your observation of a small portion of the earth would be a fallacy (argument from ignorance if I'm not mistaken).

I have been all over Europe, and it always looked flat, no matter where I was, and no matter what height I observed it from. To me, all the different portions of the earth I have ever observed looked flat. If as I have argued it is necessary to give the senses primacy, then I must conclude that the earth is flat.

All parts of the earth I have seen look flat, hence I must initially conclude that it is flat until sensorial evidence is provided which contradicts this. If the curvature of the earth cannot be observed from its surface and if the senses have primacy, then I cannot place any belief in something I cannot experience sensorially such as unobservable curvature. As the earth appears flat, I can place belief in the conclusion that it is flat, unless I encounter sensorial evidence which shows that it is not flat (but at the same time does not contradict my initial observation).

Did you see all of Europe all at once?  How does seeing 100 flat spots automatically mean that the earth is flat?  Haven't you ever seen one of these?

I never heard of Plato's cave before reading this thread, so I probably don't understand it as well as you do, but I still clearly see that you mention the idea of knowing the earth is flat based on what you see from the surface. Given the size of the earth, we know that a round earth is possible, and doesn't contradict our senses. If you mean that someone who has not traveled the earth, and has no idea how large earth actually is, they probably couldn't imagine the actual size of it, or the subtle curvature which could eventually form a sphere. If you limit the size of the earth to what you have seen, then I guess you might think the earth is flat like the people in the cave think shadows are real. Was that your point?

That's half of it. The other half of my point was that as long as we are confined in our local frame of reference on Earth, we can never know the Earth?s true shape, be it flat or round. Maybe the truth is that it is indeed flat, that NASA is feeding us with nothing but shadows and illusions. Or maybe not. Its size is irrelevant, because it can be a very big cylinder or sphere. It doesn't matter if the person has traveled around the Earth or not; no matter how far he travels, he still sees the ground being flat, mainly because he is still confined in a local reference frame on Earth. On the one hand, he perceives and interprets the Earth being flat due to the flatness of the ground wherever he goes. On the other hand, he perceives and interprets the Earth being round due to the sinking ship effect.

Thus, since we can never fully determine the shape of the Earth in our reference frame, I argue that its shape is meaningless.

Now, if you want to enlighten these Flat Earth believers, raise some money and send one of them into space, just like how one of the prisoners in the allegory reaches the ultimate reality and sees the light. Otherwise, they will have to believe that the Earth is flat due to their sensory experiences, since it is considered insane to lose faith in our own senses. That's part of the main thesis of Zeteticism: never accept what you're told by anyone until you see it for yourself.

As I've stated before, the allegory of the cave can be both a critique and tool of FET: the shadows can be those we see outside our window or those distributed by NASA, respectively. The truth is out there.

And pictures do not constitute sensorial evidence. Based on what I can observe, I must conclude the earth is flat if I accept the primacy of the senses.

Why should a picture not be sensorial? Many pictures deceive our eyes; I saw one on this site yesterday - the chequer board that has two apparently different grey scaled areas which are in fact the same shade of grey. When I find it again, I'll link to it.

I have AutCad on my computer and I can draw a circle with one drawing tool and a polygon of the same size with, for example 360 sides with another tool. The polygon will look like a circle until you zoom in close. In fact, unless I change the display resolution the circle I draw can look more like a polygon than the polygon with 360 (flat) sides. This is a well known and can easily be done by yourself or if you want I can post up a couple of screenshots.

Alas, I only have AutoCad LT which is 2 dimensional but if I had the 3 dimensional version I could create 2 spheres, one made up of flat sections. There are many other visual 'tricks' that can be played - I remember one of a spinning ballerina and it could appear to be both turning clockwise and anti-clockwise (although not at the same time) depending on brain function - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html

There are many things which fool our senses, my wife believes that the smell of violets indicates a visit from a Padre Pio. I don't, but neither do I believe everything I see either.

One of the most civilised debates I've seen on here by the way.

Did you see all of Europe all at once?  How does seeing 100 flat spots automatically mean that the earth is flat?  Haven't you ever seen one of these?

You seem to be missing the point. This isn't a question of whether the earth is flat or not, but what we must initially assume based on our senses. You're trying to make the argument that from a theoretical perspective our senses could not distinguish between the two models, but that is beside the point. Once we accept the primacy of sensorial evidence, then if the earth looks flat, we must initially accept that it is, because we cannot logically trust our senses in some way but not others.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 29, 2009, 05:45:44 PM

And pictures do not constitute sensorial evidence. Based on what I can observe, I must conclude the earth is flat if I accept the primacy of the senses.

Why should a picture not be sensorial?

A picture is not sensorial evidence because what it contains is not oberved directly. That the picture itself exists must be assumed to be true, but what the picture contains must be experienced directly by the senses in order to be considered true. Otherwise I must accept every film or staged photograph as 'true'.

A picture is not sensorial evidence because what it contains is not oberved directly. That the picture itself exists must be assumed to be true, but what the picture contains must be experienced directly by the senses in order to be considered true. Otherwise I must accept every film or staged photograph as 'true'.

Cool.

What do your senses tell you about discussing sensorial evidence on a medium like the internet?

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2009, 07:50:22 PM

Did you see all of Europe all at once?  How does seeing 100 flat spots automatically mean that the earth is flat?  Haven't you ever seen one of these?

You seem to be missing the point. This isn't a question of whether the earth is flat or not, but what we must initially assume based on our senses. You're trying to make the argument that from a theoretical perspective our senses could not distinguish between the two models, but that is beside the point. Once we accept the primacy of sensorial evidence, then if the earth looks flat, we must initially accept that it is, because we cannot logically trust our senses in some way but not others.

No, I think that you're the one that's missing the point.  If all you sense a flat spot, then it's a fallacy to extrapolate what might be beyond the limits of your observation.  I live in a river valley.  All I can observe of my environment for many miles around are hills and rivers.  Therefore, by your reasoning, I can reasonably conclude that the whole world consists of hills and rivers. 

Yes, you're right that you can't sense the difference between a FE and an RE from ground level because both would appear flat.  However, since both models predict that observations at ground level will appear flat, it would be a fallacy to reject either model without additional evidence.

No, I think that you're the one that's missing the point.  If all you sense a flat spot, then it's a fallacy to extrapolate what might be beyond the limits of your observation.  I live in a river valley.  All I can observe of my environment for many miles around are hills and rivers.  Therefore, by your reasoning, I can reasonably conclude that the whole world consists of hills and rivers. 

Indeed you could. Without sensorial evidence to the contrary, you would have no reason to believe otherwise (from a philosophical perspective). Do we agree now?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 30, 2009, 03:09:49 AM

A picture is not sensorial evidence because what it contains is not oberved directly. That the picture itself exists must be assumed to be true, but what the picture contains must be experienced directly by the senses in order to be considered true. Otherwise I must accept every film or staged photograph as 'true'.

Cool.

What do your senses tell you about discussing sensorial evidence on a medium like the internet?

As long as I'm not drawing conclusions based on what I encounter on the internet, it's fine.

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 05:17:09 AM

No, I think that you're the one that's missing the point.  If all you sense a flat spot, then it's a fallacy to extrapolate what might be beyond the limits of your observation.  I live in a river valley.  All I can observe of my environment for many miles around are hills and rivers.  Therefore, by your reasoning, I can reasonably conclude that the whole world consists of hills and rivers. 

Indeed you could. Without sensorial evidence to the contrary, you would have no reason to believe otherwise (from a philosophical perspective). Do we agree now?

Only if you agree that such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

Indeed you could. Without sensorial evidence to the contrary, you would have no reason to believe otherwise (from a philosophical perspective). Do we agree now?

You would have no reason to believe otherwise, but it would be illogical to assume it is flat. I think this would be a good test of intelligence. With limited observations, would that hypothetical person admit he cannot know the shape of the earth from his limited observations alone, or make an assumption to satisfy his desire for understanding. Kind of like how people assumed lightning was created by the gods. They had no reason to believe otherwise, but it wasn't a logical assumption.

As long as I'm not drawing conclusions based on what I encounter on the internet, it's fine.

No, it's not fine, it's two faced because you are drawing conclusions based on what you encounter.

You see words on what is basically a picture on a screen and you conclude that someone is communicating - sometimes directly with you and yet you told me:

A picture is not sensorial evidence because what it contains is not oberved directly. That the picture itself exists must be assumed to be true, but what the picture contains must be experienced directly by the senses in order to be considered true. Otherwise I must accept every film or staged photograph as 'true'.

Now, if the picture on the screen that contaiins the words I'm currently writing is not sensorial evidence why are you responding. That the picture itself exists must be assumed to be true, but what the picture contains must be experienced directly by the senses in order to be considered true and you did not directly experience the words being written, so . . .


Let me remind you of the post that interested me:

I conclude this because it's all I can conclude, until I have sensorial evidence to the contrary. And pictures do not constitute sensorial evidence. Based on what I can observe, I must conclude the earth is flat if I accept the primacy of the senses.

So it appears to me that you can conclude from the picture on your screen that there is someone communicating with you. However, even though your sensorial evidence does not allow you to see the person or even the words being written, you accept the picture (containing these words) that is on your screen as evidence and respond to it. You have absolutely no idea who I am or if I even exist and yet you refused to accept the primacy of your senses. Based on what you observe you must conclude that there is nobody here.   

You're on a slippery slope I think.

Quote from: cdenley on June 28, 2009, 11:08:23 AM

The "look out your window" argument is no argument at all, since what you observe does not indicate if the earth is flat or round.

Only if you assume first that the earth is a globe. If the earth looks flat, then it looks flat- end of story. There is only doubt if you invent a theory which involves it being round first.

Yeah. My finger splits into two semi-transparent objects when I bring it close to my eyes. Don't believe the conspiracy-approved garbage they teach you at school! You can see it WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Period.

PS. The next time someone else tells you they can't see your finger splitting, bring it close to their eyes. They'll see it too! Is it really that hard to tell which one's the illusion? The person with his eyes CLOSER to the finger ALWAYS sees it happen. I mean, come on people!

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 30, 2009, 03:04:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 05:17:09 AM

No, I think that you're the one that's missing the point.  If all you sense a flat spot, then it's a fallacy to extrapolate what might be beyond the limits of your observation.  I live in a river valley.  All I can observe of my environment for many miles around are hills and rivers.  Therefore, by your reasoning, I can reasonably conclude that the whole world consists of hills and rivers. 

Indeed you could. Without sensorial evidence to the contrary, you would have no reason to believe otherwise (from a philosophical perspective). Do we agree now?

Only if you agree that such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy to conclude that if the earth looks flat, it is. I may not be looking at all of the earth, but I am still looking at the earth and it looks flat, and so I conclude that it is flat. It's the only logical conclusion to make in the absence of sensorial evidence to the contrary.

So it appears to me that you can conclude from the picture on your screen that there is someone communicating with you. However, even though your sensorial evidence does not allow you to see the person or even the words being written, you accept the picture (containing these words) that is on your screen as evidence and respond to it. You have absolutely no idea who I am or if I even exist and yet you refused to accept the primacy of your senses. Based on what you observe you must conclude that there is nobody here.   

I have seen many people say as much on the internet. You're right, I have no evidence that you exists, nor would I claim to. Our own Tom Bishop is regularly accused of being a 'bot', though there is no such evidence.

First off, I'm glad one of my threads inspired you. 

Now, admittedly when I look out my window, and observing our planet I cannot see any evidence that it is round.  The ground itself does look flat.  However, there are other observations that can be made that put into question whether or not the earth is flat.

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 05:08:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 30, 2009, 03:04:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 05:17:09 AM

No, I think that you're the one that's missing the point.  If all you sense a flat spot, then it's a fallacy to extrapolate what might be beyond the limits of your observation.  I live in a river valley.  All I can observe of my environment for many miles around are hills and rivers.  Therefore, by your reasoning, I can reasonably conclude that the whole world consists of hills and rivers. 

Indeed you could. Without sensorial evidence to the contrary, you would have no reason to believe otherwise (from a philosophical perspective). Do we agree now?

Only if you agree that such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy to conclude that if the earth looks flat, it is. I may not be looking at all of the earth, but I am still looking at the earth and it looks flat, and so I conclude that it is flat. It's the only logical conclusion to make in the absence of sensorial evidence to the contrary.

Technically if you are only looking at part of the earth than you should only be making a conclusion about that part of the earth.

/dick

The earth is not divided into parts- there is only one earth.

which you are only looking at a part of, and making a conclusion about the whole.

/dick

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 05:08:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 30, 2009, 03:04:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 05:17:09 AM

No, I think that you're the one that's missing the point.  If all you sense a flat spot, then it's a fallacy to extrapolate what might be beyond the limits of your observation.  I live in a river valley.  All I can observe of my environment for many miles around are hills and rivers.  Therefore, by your reasoning, I can reasonably conclude that the whole world consists of hills and rivers.  

Indeed you could. Without sensorial evidence to the contrary, you would have no reason to believe otherwise (from a philosophical perspective). Do we agree now?

Only if you agree that such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy to conclude that if the earth looks flat, it is. I may not be looking at all of the earth, but I am still looking at the earth and it looks flat, and so I conclude that it is flat. It's the only logical conclusion to make in the absence of sensorial evidence to the contrary.

You cannot logically determine an objects shape by observing no more than 0.04% of it at a time. Extrapolating the the shape of the earth with that little data is illogical. Even if you observed the entire circumference/length of the earth at a high elevation, you would still be combining about 2,500 separate observations, and your observations of curvature/shape over 10 miles is not precise enough, and your lack of precision would be multiplied 2,500 times.

Drawing any conclusions from your limited observations is illogical.

which you are only looking at a part of, and making a conclusion about the whole.

/dick

I am looking at the earth, and it appears flat. Therefore, I must conclude that it is flat. Do I know for absolute certain that it is flat? No, but as I consider sensorial evidence the only true evidence, for the moment I must assume that it is.

You cannot logically determine an objects shape by observing no more than 0.04% of it at a time.

Tell me, what shape is a football (i.e. ball used in soccor)? By your logic, when I look at a football, and it looks round, I cannot make any conclusions about its shape, because after all, I can only see half of it at any one time!

Quote from: Ragnarr on July 01, 2009, 11:51:16 AM

which you are only looking at a part of, and making a conclusion about the whole.

/dick

I am looking at the earth, and it appears flat. Therefore, I must conclude that it is flat. Do I know for absolute certain that it is flat? No, but as I consider sensorial evidence the only true evidence, for the moment I must assume that it is.

That assumption is the logical fallacy.  Should a person that lives in the jungle, and has observed nothing but the jungle, assume that the entire earth is a jungle, or assume the part that he is observing is a jungle?  By your logic, he should assume the entire earth is a jungle, and would be wrong.  Therefore, such assumptions are logical fallacies.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 28, 2009, 06:05:58 AM

Now, here is the consequence for FET. If we must assume that what our senses tell us is true to trust them in the first place, then in order to be consistent we must do this always. Until we directly observe that the earth is round with our senses, we cannot assume that it is round based on theories alone. Otherwise there is a contradiction, because we are assuming senses are true and that what we observe really exists, but at the same time deciding that the earth is round and that our senses deceive us.

Why would you trust your senses to determine the shape of the earth when you can't even trust them to tell you what color these squares are?

If our senses can't tell what color the squares are, then how do you know (or the author) that they are the same?

Tell me, what shape is a football (i.e. ball used in soccor)? By your logic, when I look at a football, and it looks round, I cannot make any conclusions about its shape, because after all, I can only see half of it at any one time!

When you see 50% of the earth, then it would be valid to extrapolate the shape of the other 50%. I would say the same about a football. I'm guessing you're European, because when you said "football", I immediately thought of this.

Now if you looked directly at the tip of that ball, it might appear round, when it obviously isn't. I would consider making an assumption of the shape from only seeing 50% logical, but still not always accurate, as demonstrated by my example.

I still think you're missing the point. I understand what you're saying- the earth could be round even though it appears flat based on what I see. It could also be an upside-down pyramid shape, with a strange breed of tennis ball fish living on the downward sides. But once you accept the primacy of sensorial evidence, then you have to conclude that it is as it appears until presented with new sensorial evidence. It doesn't matter that rationally speaking, it could still be round, because that is still basing belief on the abstract, which we have already agreed (by which I mean in the opening statement) cannot form the basis for belief. You have to challenge the premise, because challenging the consequences of the premise is useless.

Out of interest, what percentage of the earth would you consider 'logical enough' to draw conclusions from?