Definition of terms and definitions to start with. Also, people who have different opinions about stuff like this might not be antagonistic enemies and this type of disagreement should not mean that people cannot work together for other shared goals.
Discussion about how the debate will be conducted, the rules, etc. should be discussed before hand.
Im not a framework would be possible. I personally have no idea which is correct, but the issue will always be where the information used in the framework has come from and whether or not it can be trusted. The answer to this question only really matters to those who want to control us anyway. If someone wants to live their life by a flat earth and therefor discount/ignore any directives from any government on this basis, that should be their right to do so, as it it should be with those that do not believe in viruses to do the same.
A big concern with many is trusting the source of some information, many believe that almost all the information received about space is second hand. So verifying the validity of the information source will be tricky.
This is actually really simple. The diameter of the earth is 8000 miles which means, as a spherical globe, the earth must curve at 8 inches per miles squared. Place an object on the ground that you know is 10 miles away from where you are standing. (Maybe on the the other side of a lake that you know is 10 miles) At 10 miles, the curvature should be 0.01263 miles and that object should be hidden by 66.69 feet of curvature. Use a camera like a Nikon p-1000 which allows you to zoom in to that object that is 10 miles away....IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN AND SEE IT WITH YOUR CAMERA, THERE IS NO CURVE. (Unless of course the earth is much larger). Remember, cameras see in straight lines just as the human eye; they cannot magically see over curves.
There's one thing I forgot to mention in this article:
I'm not saying that if we have a case where the scientific method it's outside of its scope of applicability, that we have to throw science away at that point as a useful tool for analysis.
While the scientific method provides a very high standard of proof, it is not our only tool at our disposal for rational inquiry.
The very essence of science is empirical. Empiricism is something that you do with your eyes and your ears and your senses. Empiricism involves an experience of our 4D cause-effect phenomenal reality.
Science is also LOGIC. It is applied reason.
The essence of science is thus:
a) Careful Observation, and b) Applied Reason.
So even if we have one of the many well-known cases which are outside the scope of applicability of the scientific method (untestable hypothesis, dealing with long time scales, situations in the past, one-time events, things dealing with extreme scales of Mass or Distance), we can still observe and reason. We can build predictive models and measure for accuracy.
Reality as it can be observed and perceived through our own senses has to be our starting point, which is my cosmology is founded on a stationary Earth with Luminaries rotating in a sky clock above us.
We have very small things that can't be seen with the naked eye, but can be seen well with a microscope, such as a paramecium. But there are things that probably exist but are much smaller and cannot be seen even with a microscope, such as a mitochondrion.
But the discovery of giant microbes and very small animals like nematodes using actual visual images, not models or representations or sets of equations, could be said it was actual valid proof of their existence. The pathogenicity is another story, and requires more thought.
But my point is that visual proof is sometimes valid and sometimes not valid.
Then there are big things. The planet Jupiter is big. Or so we are told. Jupiter is said to have a mass 320 greater than the Earth and a volume 1320 greater than the Earth. They say it has 90 moons at least. One of those moons is said to be larger than our Moon and larger than the planet Mercury.
There are very large celestial objects. Astronomers, without using visual evidence but other methods, believe that the star the named Alpha Centauri has:
- 8% more mass than our Sun
- 22% larger radius than our Sun
- 50% greater luminosity than our Sun
I don't understand any of that. I just collected some data from the internet, I have no idea how that was measured simply by looking at the data. It requires confidence, the assumption that scientists are competent and not liars. I don't have much confidence left for any learned person.
Is lack of confidence the beginning of knowledge? Individual persons are just individuals. It doesn't matter what costume they have on, or what titles they have, or any other accident. What they say may be somewhat true or somewhat false. That's all you can know by listening to a person describing something they have studied.
Imagine a person born blind. Let's call her Cindy. A cultist obstetrician decided to vaccinate against the invisible exploding unicorn disease the scared pregnant mother of Cindy, and she was damaged because of that. Cindy is very smart and grows up with a superb memory, hearing and sense of touch. She has a 167 IQ, measured with an IQ-o-Meter approved by the FDA, so we know it's true. Cindy becomes an astronomer. She has in her mind vasts amounts of "data" about celestial objects: sizes, distances, speeds. She has a "map" in her imagination. She understands all the theoretical foundations to all the specific methods of astronomy. She commands several computers in her lab using four keyboards at the same time, which control many devices around her. Radiotelescopes have no secrets to Cindy.
Then a fat flat-earther grifter sends an email informing our Cindy that there is no space and everything she "knows" is wrong. Cindy has all her flabber completely gasted, to the point that even her gasts begin to flab. Cindy is amused, and she ROFLs when her friends become angry in her stead, fighting the troll.
Is it cruel to tell a high IQ totally blind person that all her life is wrong? Regardless of the moral judgement, the personal defects of the "attacker" or the high accomplishments of Cindy, the truth about "what happens out there" is independent of the foolishness of mere humans, or the words they use, or the concepts they invent. The epistemological framework should explicitly exclude all reference to particular vices or virtues of persons. Just reasoning and measurement.
I don't think many people are searching truth. Many people are looking for intellectual entertainment, drama and jokes. There is no possible agreement about anything with people who don't want to agree to anything.
Comedy can be both a means and an end, but researching what is true and what is false is not comedy. For some people research is a job. And they may be blackmailed to produce false results. For others, research is about saving their own lives. Some people make research difficult because that is their job: they poison the well. Perhaps the labor of comedians is to remove obstacles for everyone, and to block bad actors from accomplishing their sabotage.
Within the framework of research there should be some "exit" points so that people can leave the enterprise graciously.
Are there big things that cannot be seen by humans? We are told that America is composed of two continents, and there is huge mountain range called the "continental divide" that goes from Alaska to the extreme point in South America. I cannot see that. There are testimonies of people who have climbed mountains. Surveyors draw maps. They have exchanged information over the years. It is possible that what they are experiencing (going up and down mountains, valleys, following rivers and documenting trees and unique stones configurations and natural landmarks) is more reliable than my direct eye experience, which says that I cannot see the huge mountains of America.
Has anyone seen from balloon at high altitude the mountain rage in its entirety? Maybe chunks of it? Are pictures enough evidence in this case? They confirm the descriptions from the ground, right? But there is always a hidden element of trusting in what people say and do. This seems to be inescapable. All the testimony and photographic evidence, coupled with an explanation that makes reasonable assumptions... does that constitute proof?
STEP 1: make a scale map with accurate distances on it
STEP 2: compare distances on map to the real world.
Obviously the globe earth map should be a globe and the flat earth map should be flat. Neither should have any distortions given that they are both scale replicas of the globe/ flat earth that they represent.
Globe Earthers have already made a globe map (anyone can buy a physical globe map or just use google earth). It's now up to Flat Earthers to produce a flat earth map to scale so that distances on a flat earth model can be measured and checked against the real world. If flat earthers can't produce a scale map of a flat earth then they don't even have a theory (a scientific theory must be predictive and therefore falsifiable).
It seems to me that you can use the scientific method to answer this question- that is, you can see which hypothesis best explains observable regularities in nature. The main difference from other branches of science is that these regularities - seasons, sunsets, the diurnal cycle etc generally speak for themselves and don't usually require experimentation to make them plain.
In short... Method: Scientific Method with agreed upon instruments/approach/methods.
General Approach: Open Inquiry
Some caveats:
Any discussion regarding data, claimed evidence and/or experiments is approached with impartial scientific exploration, a willingness to agree upon methodology for each experiment, and a willingness to throw out data that those who refute a claim do not agree are valid. All involved in the pursuit of truth are willing to abandon previous bias and understandings. An openness to alternate interpretations of data are necessary and an understanding that interpretation of data is not necessarily scientific, but rather, may be speculative based on ideas or world views that may not be validated (circular reasoning). Get to know what logical fallacies are and how to avoid them.
So, if we truly desire to seek the truth, or at least a layer of truth, we can begin with our sensory perception and then step our way out to instruments that have been validated by both parties, the claimant and the challenger. The methodology that can be agreed upon is basic, observable, repeatable scientific method.
The noteworthy challenge of this process of making discoveries about our Realm is that simply challenging the globe theory can provoked emotional reactions in some people, most typically anger. Those who believe in the validity of the claim that our realm is a spinning globe have *faith* that really smart people working for NASA and other "space" agencies have already done the basic science to prove the claim. Those who believe that we live on a globe have often not questioned the validity of what they have been taught and react with anger, likely because they do not think that they should have to validate that information for themselves. They want to "trust the experts". This emotional charge is a major block that prevents civil discourse and scientific debate...and always leads to name calling - an obvious sign of emotional trigger. So, step one is to calm the emotional reaction so that scientific observation and debate can actually happen.
Globe deniers are challenging the claim that we live on a spinning ball. They are looking for the proof of the claim, and challenging the sources of the claim. There is nothing wrong with asking the claimant to prove the claim... it is, in fact, the scientific thing to do.
Any involved man or woman in the experiments or the debate on the validity of data or interpretation of data will do well to ask themselves: Who will I be if it turns out that the globe claim is disproved/proved? Will I be basically the same person or will my head explode and my heart stop beating? You get the picture: face the existential crisis head on and observe that you can still exist even if a worldview is challenged.
Truth cannot be found if there is an emotional/financial/other attachment to proving an outcome. Challenging this world view is not a threat to an individual's life and there is no need to insult those who challenge the claim. This is how science works. Theories are challenged. Yes, we all like Star Trek and Space Balls, but what Bill is asking for is methods, so we have to be careful not to shut down due to our emotional reaction to having our world view challenged. Emotional reactions have no place in scientific inquiry.
Although we know we do not perceive all that is, we can respect that what we do observe is valid, and when we get a group of others together, who have the same sensory equipment and who can agree upon the methods to observe, who run their independent experiments and who then come together to compare outcomes, we can discover then what observations can actually be verified. All the while we choose to remain open to the possibility that the agreed upon methods had limitations and may have been incomplete.
We must remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Those who challenge the claim have every right to disqualify instruments of measurement/observation touted as proof, as well as to challenge the conclusions drawn from experiments.
It is also important to accept the possibility that we cannot know the ultimate reality, while attempting to know that which we can observe and repeat using the scientific method.
Finally, disproving the globe claim does not mean that it has to be replaced by a different theory. These are two separate conversations. We have a limitation in modern culture in that we want everything to be presented to us neatly with a bow on top. This is not how science works. Science is about disproving theories using valid methods in hopes of getting closer to the truth.
Side note: GPS might be referring to "Ground" Positioning System which is connecting, with radio waves, to ground based towers and extended through a network of satellite balloons positioned via triangulation. Name calling a pilot who has a different world view, and believes she has evidence to support it, is an example of acting out as a result of emotional trigger that we should attempt to quiet if we wish to seek the truth. A mind that is open to scientific inquiry would be interested and open to ask questions to understand further her proposed evidence that the realm is not a ball. Granted, that is not what this comment thread is for, it is simply to discuss methods, but this interactions demonstrates what I mentioned about emotional reactions that we should all carefully observe and quiet in ourselves if we wish to seek the truth.
From past experiences with "skeptics, Inc.", I noticed that preaches in epistemology are intended for the other side, not the preacher's. They are an idealized structure of one's line of argument. At least your framework is minimal. But even then, a sophist can escape. Worse, paradigm shifts may justifyably need a shift in method. That's why there was someone named Feyerabend who argued "Against Method".
Friends, OFF TOPIC comments will be deleted.
Please stay ON POINT to the questions I raised. Thank you.
Definition of terms and definitions to start with. Also, people who have different opinions about stuff like this might not be antagonistic enemies and this type of disagreement should not mean that people cannot work together for other shared goals.
Discussion about how the debate will be conducted, the rules, etc. should be discussed before hand.
Im not a framework would be possible. I personally have no idea which is correct, but the issue will always be where the information used in the framework has come from and whether or not it can be trusted. The answer to this question only really matters to those who want to control us anyway. If someone wants to live their life by a flat earth and therefor discount/ignore any directives from any government on this basis, that should be their right to do so, as it it should be with those that do not believe in viruses to do the same.
A big concern with many is trusting the source of some information, many believe that almost all the information received about space is second hand. So verifying the validity of the information source will be tricky.
This is actually really simple. The diameter of the earth is 8000 miles which means, as a spherical globe, the earth must curve at 8 inches per miles squared. Place an object on the ground that you know is 10 miles away from where you are standing. (Maybe on the the other side of a lake that you know is 10 miles) At 10 miles, the curvature should be 0.01263 miles and that object should be hidden by 66.69 feet of curvature. Use a camera like a Nikon p-1000 which allows you to zoom in to that object that is 10 miles away....IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN AND SEE IT WITH YOUR CAMERA, THERE IS NO CURVE. (Unless of course the earth is much larger). Remember, cameras see in straight lines just as the human eye; they cannot magically see over curves.
There's one thing I forgot to mention in this article:
I'm not saying that if we have a case where the scientific method it's outside of its scope of applicability, that we have to throw science away at that point as a useful tool for analysis.
While the scientific method provides a very high standard of proof, it is not our only tool at our disposal for rational inquiry.
The very essence of science is empirical. Empiricism is something that you do with your eyes and your ears and your senses. Empiricism involves an experience of our 4D cause-effect phenomenal reality.
Science is also LOGIC. It is applied reason.
The essence of science is thus:
a) Careful Observation, and b) Applied Reason.
So even if we have one of the many well-known cases which are outside the scope of applicability of the scientific method (untestable hypothesis, dealing with long time scales, situations in the past, one-time events, things dealing with extreme scales of Mass or Distance), we can still observe and reason. We can build predictive models and measure for accuracy.
Reality as it can be observed and perceived through our own senses has to be our starting point, which is my cosmology is founded on a stationary Earth with Luminaries rotating in a sky clock above us.
About the framework.
A problem here is the visual element.
We have very small things that can't be seen with the naked eye, but can be seen well with a microscope, such as a paramecium. But there are things that probably exist but are much smaller and cannot be seen even with a microscope, such as a mitochondrion.
But the discovery of giant microbes and very small animals like nematodes using actual visual images, not models or representations or sets of equations, could be said it was actual valid proof of their existence. The pathogenicity is another story, and requires more thought.
But my point is that visual proof is sometimes valid and sometimes not valid.
Then there are big things. The planet Jupiter is big. Or so we are told. Jupiter is said to have a mass 320 greater than the Earth and a volume 1320 greater than the Earth. They say it has 90 moons at least. One of those moons is said to be larger than our Moon and larger than the planet Mercury.
There are very large celestial objects. Astronomers, without using visual evidence but other methods, believe that the star the named Alpha Centauri has:
- 8% more mass than our Sun
- 22% larger radius than our Sun
- 50% greater luminosity than our Sun
I don't understand any of that. I just collected some data from the internet, I have no idea how that was measured simply by looking at the data. It requires confidence, the assumption that scientists are competent and not liars. I don't have much confidence left for any learned person.
Is lack of confidence the beginning of knowledge? Individual persons are just individuals. It doesn't matter what costume they have on, or what titles they have, or any other accident. What they say may be somewhat true or somewhat false. That's all you can know by listening to a person describing something they have studied.
Imagine a person born blind. Let's call her Cindy. A cultist obstetrician decided to vaccinate against the invisible exploding unicorn disease the scared pregnant mother of Cindy, and she was damaged because of that. Cindy is very smart and grows up with a superb memory, hearing and sense of touch. She has a 167 IQ, measured with an IQ-o-Meter approved by the FDA, so we know it's true. Cindy becomes an astronomer. She has in her mind vasts amounts of "data" about celestial objects: sizes, distances, speeds. She has a "map" in her imagination. She understands all the theoretical foundations to all the specific methods of astronomy. She commands several computers in her lab using four keyboards at the same time, which control many devices around her. Radiotelescopes have no secrets to Cindy.
Then a fat flat-earther grifter sends an email informing our Cindy that there is no space and everything she "knows" is wrong. Cindy has all her flabber completely gasted, to the point that even her gasts begin to flab. Cindy is amused, and she ROFLs when her friends become angry in her stead, fighting the troll.
Is it cruel to tell a high IQ totally blind person that all her life is wrong? Regardless of the moral judgement, the personal defects of the "attacker" or the high accomplishments of Cindy, the truth about "what happens out there" is independent of the foolishness of mere humans, or the words they use, or the concepts they invent. The epistemological framework should explicitly exclude all reference to particular vices or virtues of persons. Just reasoning and measurement.
I don't think many people are searching truth. Many people are looking for intellectual entertainment, drama and jokes. There is no possible agreement about anything with people who don't want to agree to anything.
Comedy can be both a means and an end, but researching what is true and what is false is not comedy. For some people research is a job. And they may be blackmailed to produce false results. For others, research is about saving their own lives. Some people make research difficult because that is their job: they poison the well. Perhaps the labor of comedians is to remove obstacles for everyone, and to block bad actors from accomplishing their sabotage.
Within the framework of research there should be some "exit" points so that people can leave the enterprise graciously.
Are there big things that cannot be seen by humans? We are told that America is composed of two continents, and there is huge mountain range called the "continental divide" that goes from Alaska to the extreme point in South America. I cannot see that. There are testimonies of people who have climbed mountains. Surveyors draw maps. They have exchanged information over the years. It is possible that what they are experiencing (going up and down mountains, valleys, following rivers and documenting trees and unique stones configurations and natural landmarks) is more reliable than my direct eye experience, which says that I cannot see the huge mountains of America.
Has anyone seen from balloon at high altitude the mountain rage in its entirety? Maybe chunks of it? Are pictures enough evidence in this case? They confirm the descriptions from the ground, right? But there is always a hidden element of trusting in what people say and do. This seems to be inescapable. All the testimony and photographic evidence, coupled with an explanation that makes reasonable assumptions... does that constitute proof?
Explain why a particular model does not make sense, i.e. independently verifiable empirical facts which do not fit with it.
There's many things to question but the one that takes the cake is questioning how the sun is invisible to a part of the world on flat earth.
The light geometry is impossible. I cannot seem to get this explained by my friend who believes in fe.
https://youtu.be/q4u4N-GWfXI
STEP 1: make a scale map with accurate distances on it
STEP 2: compare distances on map to the real world.
Obviously the globe earth map should be a globe and the flat earth map should be flat. Neither should have any distortions given that they are both scale replicas of the globe/ flat earth that they represent.
Globe Earthers have already made a globe map (anyone can buy a physical globe map or just use google earth). It's now up to Flat Earthers to produce a flat earth map to scale so that distances on a flat earth model can be measured and checked against the real world. If flat earthers can't produce a scale map of a flat earth then they don't even have a theory (a scientific theory must be predictive and therefore falsifiable).
It seems to me that you can use the scientific method to answer this question- that is, you can see which hypothesis best explains observable regularities in nature. The main difference from other branches of science is that these regularities - seasons, sunsets, the diurnal cycle etc generally speak for themselves and don't usually require experimentation to make them plain.
"stated another way:
Are there well-known limitations to the Scientific Method which rule it out as a tool of inquiry in this case?"
No, the scientific method works fine.
I have debunked all FE 'evidence' in many discussions I had with the FE believers.
But they do have a good point with the universe being geocentric instead of heliocentric!
Before the current heliocentric lie, the geocentric globe was the mainstream idea. Copernicus was from the hidden hand or pyramid club.
Geocentric Tycho Brahe vs heliocentric model of our solarsystem:
Ep123 The TYCHOS: Simon Shack and Patrik Holmqvist discuss a more credible model of our solar system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V09MasmKxOY
Ep 154 The TYCHOS model of our Solar system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU7Uo4JBePM
TYCHOS part 2 - Why stellar parallax falsifies the conventional Copernican model of the solar system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QRCn_Ny1Q
Free book + working model: https://www.tychos.space/
In short... Method: Scientific Method with agreed upon instruments/approach/methods.
General Approach: Open Inquiry
Some caveats:
Any discussion regarding data, claimed evidence and/or experiments is approached with impartial scientific exploration, a willingness to agree upon methodology for each experiment, and a willingness to throw out data that those who refute a claim do not agree are valid. All involved in the pursuit of truth are willing to abandon previous bias and understandings. An openness to alternate interpretations of data are necessary and an understanding that interpretation of data is not necessarily scientific, but rather, may be speculative based on ideas or world views that may not be validated (circular reasoning). Get to know what logical fallacies are and how to avoid them.
So, if we truly desire to seek the truth, or at least a layer of truth, we can begin with our sensory perception and then step our way out to instruments that have been validated by both parties, the claimant and the challenger. The methodology that can be agreed upon is basic, observable, repeatable scientific method.
The noteworthy challenge of this process of making discoveries about our Realm is that simply challenging the globe theory can provoked emotional reactions in some people, most typically anger. Those who believe in the validity of the claim that our realm is a spinning globe have *faith* that really smart people working for NASA and other "space" agencies have already done the basic science to prove the claim. Those who believe that we live on a globe have often not questioned the validity of what they have been taught and react with anger, likely because they do not think that they should have to validate that information for themselves. They want to "trust the experts". This emotional charge is a major block that prevents civil discourse and scientific debate...and always leads to name calling - an obvious sign of emotional trigger. So, step one is to calm the emotional reaction so that scientific observation and debate can actually happen.
Globe deniers are challenging the claim that we live on a spinning ball. They are looking for the proof of the claim, and challenging the sources of the claim. There is nothing wrong with asking the claimant to prove the claim... it is, in fact, the scientific thing to do.
Any involved man or woman in the experiments or the debate on the validity of data or interpretation of data will do well to ask themselves: Who will I be if it turns out that the globe claim is disproved/proved? Will I be basically the same person or will my head explode and my heart stop beating? You get the picture: face the existential crisis head on and observe that you can still exist even if a worldview is challenged.
Truth cannot be found if there is an emotional/financial/other attachment to proving an outcome. Challenging this world view is not a threat to an individual's life and there is no need to insult those who challenge the claim. This is how science works. Theories are challenged. Yes, we all like Star Trek and Space Balls, but what Bill is asking for is methods, so we have to be careful not to shut down due to our emotional reaction to having our world view challenged. Emotional reactions have no place in scientific inquiry.
Although we know we do not perceive all that is, we can respect that what we do observe is valid, and when we get a group of others together, who have the same sensory equipment and who can agree upon the methods to observe, who run their independent experiments and who then come together to compare outcomes, we can discover then what observations can actually be verified. All the while we choose to remain open to the possibility that the agreed upon methods had limitations and may have been incomplete.
We must remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Those who challenge the claim have every right to disqualify instruments of measurement/observation touted as proof, as well as to challenge the conclusions drawn from experiments.
It is also important to accept the possibility that we cannot know the ultimate reality, while attempting to know that which we can observe and repeat using the scientific method.
Finally, disproving the globe claim does not mean that it has to be replaced by a different theory. These are two separate conversations. We have a limitation in modern culture in that we want everything to be presented to us neatly with a bow on top. This is not how science works. Science is about disproving theories using valid methods in hopes of getting closer to the truth.
Side note: GPS might be referring to "Ground" Positioning System which is connecting, with radio waves, to ground based towers and extended through a network of satellite balloons positioned via triangulation. Name calling a pilot who has a different world view, and believes she has evidence to support it, is an example of acting out as a result of emotional trigger that we should attempt to quiet if we wish to seek the truth. A mind that is open to scientific inquiry would be interested and open to ask questions to understand further her proposed evidence that the realm is not a ball. Granted, that is not what this comment thread is for, it is simply to discuss methods, but this interactions demonstrates what I mentioned about emotional reactions that we should all carefully observe and quiet in ourselves if we wish to seek the truth.
From past experiences with "skeptics, Inc.", I noticed that preaches in epistemology are intended for the other side, not the preacher's. They are an idealized structure of one's line of argument. At least your framework is minimal. But even then, a sophist can escape. Worse, paradigm shifts may justifyably need a shift in method. That's why there was someone named Feyerabend who argued "Against Method".