Flat Earth
tr...@ucla-cs.uucp
In article <13...@quad1.quad.com> ol...@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1...@gt-eedsp.UUCP> sjre...@gt-eedsp.UUCP () writes:
>>Anyone can see that nothingness causes nothing.
>
>"Anyone"? If YOU can't understand an idea (because your education did not
>include a good course in quantum mechanics and your reading list did not cover
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>any modern particle physics theories), it does not necessarily mean that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[I flame these below]
>everyone else operates with the same handicaps.
>
>"Anyone can see that rocks don't fall from the sky"...
>"Anyone can see that the Earth is flat"...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>--
>Oleg Kiselev -- ol...@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg
>HASA, "A" Division
>
>DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
Unfortunately you probably do speak for your employers and most other people.
"Everyone knows" that the earth is round because they've been told so since
childhood. Did you know that this belief has the same origin as the "creation
science" that you condemn? Namely, the medieval Church, which appropriated
the idea with a whole lot of other classical philosophical paraphenalia during
the Scholastic period.
Much of our early education is really "education by intimidation". Small
children have a great deal of trouble accepting the associative law of
addition. They are just browbeat into accepting it. In adult life some
of our best and brightest ask the question again but they are usually
satisfied when they are convinced that the law is mathamatically consistent.
Yet I believe that something is to be gained by questioning authoritarian
dogma. Our beliefs should rest on reason and firm evidence, or on divine
revelation (allowing for the revelation that we ourselves are divine).
But revelation is less sure. Divine as we may be, we see reality as through
a glass, darkly. We must validate both our experience and the reasoning which
is based on experience. An error may be handled for a while by ingenious
ad hoc arguments but sooner or later the error will spread like a disease
(or a dysfunction of the fourth chakra) throughout our entire belief system.
That is why we must be so careful with the roots of our beliefs.
Anything may be proved from a false premise. That is the reason for the
spectacular success of the ad hocquery which constitutes modern science.
But we are reaching the point where ad hocquery will no longer serve.
Historically the round earth theory is the taproot of modern science.
Yet it starts off with a logical flaw. We accept it in childhood because
of intimidation, and in adulthood because of habit or because of demonstrations
of its mathematical consistency. MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY DOES NOT IMPLY
TRUTH.
The first question any child asks is: why do the people at the antipodes
not fall off? The "answer" is that `down' means `toward the center of
the earth'. THIS CONTAINS TWO FALLACIES (maybe more). Firstly, `down'
already has a *physical* meaning, it cannot be simply redefined. I cannot
just redefine `up' to mean `north' or `blue' to mean `heavy' either. Second-
ly it *assumes* that the earth has a center. This is circular, and
more... . The earth does not have a center. In Frege's terminology,
the name `the center of the earth' has a sense (Sinn), but no denotation,
(Bedeutung). Thus the "answer" above does not denote a truth-value. It
is *meaningless* (bedeutunglos).
Originally the round earth theory gained support not only because of theocratic
backing, but because of geometrical difficulties. But these difficulties
cropped up later in round-earth based physics with a vengeance. In 1905-1910
physicists decided that the universe was four-dimensional, with a funny
metric that wasn't even positive-definite. In 1915 they decided that the
funny metric changed from point to point. Then they decided that the behavior
of objects depended on how they were observed, that no path could be assigned
to the motion of an electron not under observation, for example. Recently
they've started to claim (String Theory) that elementary particles may have
10 or 26 dimensions wrapped up inside them!
I do not advocate the elimination of modern science. With all its ad hocquery,
it is invaluable for the maintenance of our technology. But it is clear that
the theory is disintegrating into nonsense. Hard as it may seem, science will
have to return to the wrong turn it took in the middle ages and take a new
path.
Now for the part you alt.flamers have been waiting for! It should be clear
that my presentation of platygaeanism is *much* more cogent and intelligent
than anything creationists or astrologers have been able to come up with.
DO NOT LUMP PLATYGAEANISM IN WITH ASTROLOGY OR CREATIONISM. IT MAKES MUCH
MORE SENSE. Thanx
Bret Jolly, Mathemagus, LA platygaean society.
ol...@quad1.uucp
Follow-ups to alt.flame]
In article <94...@shemp.UCLA.EDU> tr...@CS.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) gives us
a defense of Flat Earth theory and tries to show that his arguement is better
than that given by Creationists. That is almost true...
I can appreciate a finely crafted arguement, Bret. But you err. It is easier
to prove that the earth is round than to prove that it is flat. Next time try
argueing in defense of phlogistons, ether wind, or fluidum vitae... Those are
far more amusing subjects.