What shape is the "Earth"?

[GrowingSmaller]

I put the term "Earth" in quotes as people generally believe that the land we live on is roughly spheroid and orbits a star called the Sun. This is the view of "scientific realism".

I am not sure.

I have never been to space and seen the "Earth" for myself. Nor for that matter have I seen India or China. Why should I believe these places exist, or that the Earth is spheroidal?

Would I not have more sure knowledge of the world if I discarded indirect evidence (testimony of others, photographs etc) and stuck with the more direct my senses. When I am on a train, I know I am on a train. Can I be equally sure about India or a spherical "Earth"?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If you discard indirect evidence and reliable sources then..
No, you would not be equally certain about the existance of the train you are on and India. Nor for that matter would you be equally certain of the existance of your wife's pregnancy test results and would be in your right to think she is just getting fat as time go's on. You would also have to be uncertain for example of all forms chemistry untill you have done the tests yourself for every possible reaction etc.

I like to think on this sometimes, particulary the earth being round part and I wonder if you just deny it hard enough for long enough if somebody will finally get frustrated enough to fund a mission to take me into space and prove the earth is spherical (would it not be hilarious if once we actually got up there we both saw the earth was really flat?)

In the end though I think you have to rely on indirect evidence and reliable sources to get further in life, but its perfectly acceptable to keep in mind that there is always a chance they might be not entirely correct or even wrong all together.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I put the term "Earth" in quotes as people generally believe that the land we live on is roughly spheroid and orbits a star called the Sun. This is the view of "scientific realism".

I am not sure.

Skepticism of this sort may be a fun exercise for eighteen year olds just starting to investigate philosophy, but it is poisonous to the mind if taken seriously.

Anyway, the answer is "flat", assuming that you are moving at near light speed directly towards the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_contraction


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I put the term "Earth" in quotes as people generally believe that the land we live on is roughly spheroid and orbits a star called the Sun. This is the view of "scientific realism".

I am not sure.

I have never been to space and seen the "Earth" for myself. Nor for that matter have I seen India or China. Why should I believe these places exist, or that the Earth is spheroidal?

Would I not have more sure knowledge of the world if I discarded indirect evidence (testimony of others, photographs etc) and stuck with the more direct my senses. When I am on a train, I know I am on a train. Can I be equally sure about India or a spherical "Earth"?

If you disregard the plethora of evidence supporting the existence of, say, India, then you must adopt a conspiracy theory of unprecedented magnitude (everyone is in on it) and of supreme arrogance (everyone is out to trick you and you alone). I prefer to stand on the shoulder's of giants, rather than try and start from scratch.

 

[KCfromNC]

I put the term "Earth" in quotes as people generally believe that the land we live on is roughly spheroid and orbits a star called the Sun. This is the view of "scientific realism".

I am not sure.

I sense that a believing Christian is about to turn into a hyper-skeptical solipsist to try and prove a rhetorical point. Any takers on this bet?

To cut to the chase - we'll present the objective scientific evidence that the earth is oblate spheroid. You present the objective scientific evidence that God is Jesus who sent himself to earth in human-ish form so he could sort-of die and come back from the dead to be with himself again in heaven to save humans from himself. Then we can discuss why both of these require "faith" because we have to assume that we're not brains in a vat and/or suffering from a mass delusion so they're both equally valid.

How am I doing so far?

 

[quatona]

I put the term "Earth" in quotes as people generally believe that the land we live on is roughly spheroid and orbits a star called the Sun. This is the view of "scientific realism".

How´s that a reason to put the term "Earth" in quotes? What´s the reason to capitalize it? And what´s the reaon to put "scientific realism" in quotes?

I am not sure.

Don´t take it personally, but I don´t believe you.

I have never been to space and seen the "Earth" for myself. Nor for that matter have I seen India or China. Why should I believe these places exist, or that the Earth is spheroidal?

I don´t think you should.
I think, though, that there are a plethora of things that you would have a hard time explaining to yourself with the earth being flat. Do you also believe that the "stars" are actually little candles hanging on the ceiling?

Would I not have more sure knowledge of the world if I discarded indirect evidence (testimony of others, photographs etc) and stuck with the more direct my senses.

Do you think that only trusting your individual senses (and discarding all other evidence) is the position of physical realism (isn´t that actually more the position of "I have a personal relationship with god, so there" theology), or why did you particularly mention it in your introduction?
In any case, no, you wouldn´t have more sure knowledge. At the very best, you would have less unsure knowledge.
So, what do your direct senses tell you about the shape of the earth and the existence of India and China?

When I am on a train, I know I am on a train.

You could be dreaming. You could be in a room that only looked like a train from the outside, but all the windows are actually flatscreens.

Can I be equally sure about India or a spherical "Earth"?

No, you would be differently sure.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I notice my perceptions change if I disregard all that indirect knowlede (of Indian, the shape of the planet etc). I think it might be a bit like Zen meditation in quieting down the "monkey mind". Instead of my thoughts wondering to this that and the other, and my vision 'clouded' by attention to that which I cannot see, I become focused on the here and now - and it has it's own beauty. It's an interesting exercise, like practicing a form of minimalism.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

One for the mathematicians and physicists. If I say "the photo from space proves that the earth is speroid" then am I assuming a particular space-time geometry, or "shape of the universe", or maybe even a Kantian style "form of sensible intuition"?

A simplified analogy would be if I look as a square through a certain shaped lens than it will not appear square anymore. Likewise if we look through a lens of certain assumptions about the physical world, might our understanding or results be determined by it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

One for the mathematicians and physicists. If I say "the photo from space proves that the earth is speroid" then am I assuming a particular space-time geometry, or "shape of the universe", or maybe even a Kantian style "form of sensible intuition"?

A simplified analogy would be if I look as a square through a certain shaped lens than it will not appear square anymore. Likewise if we look through a lens of certain assumptions about the physical world, might our understanding or results be determined by it?

Doubtful. A physical lens has obvious, measurable effects apparent to anyone, regardless of beliefs. What we observe when we see the Earth from various angles is stubbornly the same. Whatever the "lens of certain assumptions" might be, it certainly doesn't change the shape of the Earth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I become focused on the here and now - and it has it's own beauty. It's an interesting exercise, like practicing a form of minimalism.

There may be some value to that as a spiritual exercise, but I prefer taking a round trip so that I always return to "maximalism". I can't see minimalism as an end-in-itself, but merely as a means to an end.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I notice my perceptions change if I disregard all that indirect knowlede (of Indian, the shape of the planet etc). I think it might be a bit like Zen meditation in quieting down the "monkey mind". Instead of my thoughts wondering to this that and the other, and my vision 'clouded' by attention to that which I cannot see, I become focused on the here and now - and it has it's own beauty. It's an interesting exercise, like practicing a form of minimalism.

Rule of thumb: When you stil manage to write on your keyboard in this state of mind you are doing the exercise wrong.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was remembering my experience from another night when typing. I found that the coulours of my room became a lot more vivid and enjoyable when I focused on the phenomenal. Maybe you'd expect as much. I can often be lost in thought, and I do not have good visual awareness (although I am good at reading Snellen charts), so it is a freshener to focus on things around me.


Anyway scientific realism makes me feel so small and insignificant. Its just not nice.

 

[KCfromNC]

One for the mathematicians and physicists. If I say "the photo from space proves that the earth is speroid" then am I assuming a particular space-time geometry, or "shape of the universe", or maybe even a Kantian style "form of sensible intuition"?

Don't know. How is this relevant to mathematicians and physicists? I don't think many of them claim proof from a single isolated observation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyway scientific realism makes me feel so small and insignificant. Its just not nice.

I can understand the need to feel significant. But scientific realism can help one feel that way.

Watch a rocket launch on youtube, and focus on the way in which our seeming insignificance may seem more significant.

YouTube - AMAZING ROCKET LAUNCH

Or here's a fun thing you can do online:

Eyes on the Solar System

Take a tour of the solar system, and know that our technology, at least, has been out there. We are a part of the cosmos, not separate from it cowering beneath it.

And keep in mind that there is no "cosmic perspective" in some grand sense, there is only our own.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrayAngel]

Are you thinking of joining the Flat Earth Society?

 

[jayem]

I have never been to space and seen the "Earth" for myself.

You don't have to go into space. Have you never been on a plane on a clear day? You can readily see the curvature of the horizon. And in fact, whenever the horizon is visible, you'll see that it's curved no matter where in you world you are flying. You could also transmit a powerful laser beam across the ocean from a precisely measured height above sea level. You'll find that the height of the beam above sea level continually increases the farther you go from the point of origin.

The point is that there are objective, measurable, and reliable ways to confirm that the surface of the earth curves away from you at all points of observation. You may chose not to accept them, but that's a different discussion.

 

[quatona]

I was remembering my experience from another night when typing. I found that the coulours of my room became a lot more vivid and enjoyable when I focused on the phenomenal. Maybe you'd expect as much.

Of course I would.

Anyway scientific realism makes me feel so small and insignificant. Its just not nice.

Yeah, it´s probably not even one of the declared goals or purposes of scientific realism to make you feel great and significant.
If seeing colours more vividly and enjoyably makes you feel great and significant that´s fine.
A root channel treatment or mathematics don´t make me feel great and significant, either.
I´m not sure I fully understand your point.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yeah, it´s probably not even one of the declared goals or purposes of scientific realism to make you feel great and significant.
If seeing colours more vividly and enjoyably makes you feel great and significant that´s fine.
A root channel treatment or mathematics don´t make me feel great and significant, either.
I´m not sure I fully understand your point.

Humbug to scientific realism. Attack!!! Scientific realism is just another philosophical perspective, but based on science though ( and some would say masquerading as science....).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I can understand the need to feel significant. But scientific realism can help one feel that way.

Watch a rocket launch on youtube, and focus on the way in which our seeming insignificance may seem more significant.

YouTube - AMAZING ROCKET LAUNCH

Or here's a fun thing you can do online:

Eyes on the Solar System

Take a tour of the solar system, and know that our technology, at least, has been out there. We are a part of the cosmos, not separate from it cowering beneath it.

And keep in mind that there is no "cosmic perspective" in some grand sense, there is only our own.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you saying that scientific realism is not a "cosmic perspective"?

 

[quatona]

Humbug to scientific realism. Attack!!! Scientific realism is just another philosophical perspective, but based on science though ( and some would say masquerading as science....).

Ok, I give up. The earth is a disk because scientific realism makes GS feel small and insignificant.