Any "Flat Earthers" here?!

[HitchSlap]

But I already do understand it. They look for the answer in the wrong place.

They look in science , not philosophy.
In philosophy science is clearly just a way to model and a model of observation.

The paradoxes only exist if you pretend science describes " what is" not a description of what it " normally does"

As a model the equations work within the tolerances we need for prediction. Mostly. The oddities are pushing the model outside its working envelope, in hoping a model of what it does can also say what it is!

Believing science as a philosophy of life, is like putting faith in a lego building!

People do tend to put faith in all kinds of unfounded ideas.

 

[SkyWriting]

For those of you who are of the the flat earth persuasion, what convinced you?

I support the flat earth supporters on a scientific basis.
I don't support the fundamentalist literalist reasoning.

 

[Mountainmike]

People do tend to put faith in all kinds of unfounded ideas.

So why do you say you are saved by a lego modelling kit, or a lego building?

 

[HitchSlap]

So why do you say you are saved by a lego modelling kit, or a lego building?

Except I didn't.

 

[HitchSlap]

I support the flat earth supporters on a scientific basis.
I don't support the fundamentalist literalist reasoning.

What is some of the science behind a flat earth model?

 

[SkyWriting]

What is some of the science behind a flat earth model?

The Earth is Flat, and you will prove it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Except I didn't.

You say you are saved by science.
Science is in essence a modelling method , and a model.

More sophisticated than lego , but in philosophical terms it is a modelling tool and model none the less, which models our observations.

You say you are " saved" by it?
Sounds pretty absurd to me.

 

[HitchSlap]

How about you pick one point, then we can discuss?

 

[HitchSlap]

You say you are saved by science.
Science is in essence a modelling method , and a model.

More sophisticated than lego , but in philosophical terms it is a modelling tool none the less.

You say you are " saved" by it?
Sounds pretty absurd to me.

Anything else I should know about me?

 

[Mountainmike]

Anything else I should know about me?

I am genuinely interested.

Why do you think you are " saved by science" . You say it in your profile , so it is a fair comment in a context of
" flat earthing" , that is - a discussion of absurdities.

The point I make is scientific realists and relativists mock theists as " believers in absurdity"
But even as a scientist I regard believers in scientific realism as bekievers in absurdity. They make a god of a lego set.


I can only urge you to study philosophy of science, what it can know, and study the paradoxes of quantum physics. See what you then believe.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am genuinely interested.

Why do you think you are " saved by science" . You say it in your profile , so it is a fair comment in a context of
" flat earthing" , that is - a discussion of absurdities.

The point I make is scientific realists and relativists mock theists as " believers in absurdity"
But even as a scientist I regard believers in scientific realism as bekievers in absurdity. They make a god of a lego set.

Yes, I know, you come across as having a chip on your shoulder because yo have to defend defenseless positions. I get it.

 

[Mountainmike]

In fairness, I think I just showed that your elevation of science to a place it cannot claim IS a defenceless position.

Meanwhile, I can show you a lot of forensic and pathology evidence for Eucharistic miracles. That is - bread became heart myocardium, with white cells that demonstrate life. Which shows I have far more scientific evidence for theistic origin of life, than you do for abiogenesesis, for which there is no valid hypothesis, let alone any evidence!

So who has the more absurd belief?

Yes, I know, you come across as having a chip on your shoulder because yo have to defend defenseless positions. I get it.

 

[HitchSlap]

In fairness, I think I just showed that your elevation of science to a place it cannot claim IS a defenceless position.

Meanwhile, I can show you a lot of forensic and pathology evidence for Eucharistic miracles. That is - bread became heart myocardium, with white cells that demonstrate life. Which shows I have far more scientific evidence for theistic origin of life, than you do for abiogenesesis, for which there is no valid hypothesis, let alone any evidence!

So who has the more absurd belief?

You have no appreciation for irony, I see. No matter.

So, you believe in a flat earth?

 

[Speedwell]

Meanwhile, I can show you a lot of forensic and pathology evidence for Eucharistic miracles.

If true, that would be a damned shame. However, I will not let it spoil my experience of the miracle on Sunday morning.

 

[Nithavela]

Meanwhile, I can show you a lot of forensic and pathology evidence for Eucharistic miracles. That is - bread became heart myocardium, with white cells that demonstrate life.

How's the air on that mountain?

 

[Mountainmike]

How's the air on that mountain?

A lot clearer for vision than trying to see through the smog and haze of a city! I can see everything clearly for miles from here...

 

[SkyWriting]

What is some of the science behind a flat earth model?

!00% of the world population experiences a flat earth
from where they stand. Scientifically it's flat for users.

When you build something flat, you measure it using gravity.
Using gravity as your measurement device, the earth is flat and level.

 

[Shemjaza]

!00% of the world population experiences a flat earth
from where they stand. Scientifically it's flat for users.

When you build something flat, you measure it using gravity.
Using gravity as your measurement device, the earth is flat and level.

Except we also set the sun rise and set. People may not be aware of it, but it takes nothing more then trigonometry to show the sun is not nearby and is not eclipsed by a hard edge of a flat surface.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except we also set the sun rise and set. People may not be aware of it, but it takes nothing more then trigonometry to show the sun is not nearby and is not eclipsed by a hard edge of a flat surface.

Even you speak as if the sun was moving.
Most people don't use trigonometry day to day.
One out of five do not have access to electricity.
Round earth people are nuts to think that it is
important for everyone to know such trivia.

 

[[serious]]

Even you speak as if the sun was moving.
Most people don't use trigonometry day to day.
One out of five do not have access to electricity.
Round earth people are nuts to think that it is
important for everyone to know such trivia.

5 out of 5 people in this thread have electricity.