IF the world is flat, then all observations we make occur on a flat earth.
Jack, I've had a number of discussions with you, and I've read through even more of your threads with folks on this forum. I'm pretty convinced that your discussions with people would be more productive if you reduced your use of this tautology.
I think your intent in deploying it is to challenge someone's line of reasoning when they stray too close to conflating consistency with evidence, of blurring observation with experiment. I think your intent is to make clear that the ball model's consistency with astronomical observations isn't evidence per se for the ball model.
But, as is the case in this thread, using the tautology almost always distracts from your point rather than clarifies it. Readers often assume (and you make it easy for them to assume) that you're setting up a straw man that says our observations literally, causally shape the world, which nobody you've talked to here actually thinks. It just sidetracks the conversation while you have to explain to the reader that:
You misunderstand.
I think your discussions would be better served if you found another way of raising this point. Maybe a way of explaining that of course any model of the world's shape needs to be consistent with our astronomical observations, but that consistency alone is only circumstantial evidence at best and is made weaker by the existence of any alternative models that are equally consistent with observation.
I think it’s hard to “break through” and really convey my meaning despite the verbiage - but you seem to have gotten it! Hopefully your rephrasing will be of use.
I think it is possible, as you suggest - that the statement is being misunderstood as some sort of witchcraft/“the secret” strawman - but it certainly isn’t in the statement itself. It doesn’t even apply / isn’t directed at or about the views of the “opponent” (which to me, they are not - they are merely the recipient in a conversation) which all strawmen need to be, by definition.
I’ll give it a whirl and try phrasing it differently when, inevitably, this point comes up in the future.
It doesn’t even apply / isn’t directed at or about the views of the “opponent”
That may be true of that statement in isolation, but it's a wider pattern in some of the things you say. For example, when the conversation recipient said this:
Also, the North pole would be the tropics as the sun would pass directly over it every day and there would be no such thing as "midnight Sun".
You responded first with:
Your reasoning is silly. The sun does what it does, and our observations of it don’t change when our perceptions of the shape of the world do. That would be crazy.
I'm sure you're not trying to misrepresent the other person's point, but responses like that strike the reader (at least me) as either a strawman, deliberate obtuseness, or a severe misunderstanding. As you said, it would be silly to claim the observations change the actual path of the sun, which is why it seems obvious to me that that's not what they're suggesting. I'm pretty certain they're trying to point out what they see as an inconsistency between what we observe ("midnight Sun") and the predictions of a flat earth model ("the sun would pass over it every day").
I think a more appropriate response is to address their perceived inconsistency. Since it sounds like you accept observations of midnight sun, I think that means explaining how a midnight sun could be consistent with a flat earth.
Edit: I see you do offer such an explanation a couple paragraphs after the above quote, so I don't think you're misunderstanding their point. But I maintain that the intervening paragraphs about what a silly reasoning it would be if... are only hurting your clarity and liable to put your conversation partner on the defensive, which I believe is (usually) the opposite of what you're actually wanting to do.
Just more food for thought, and thanks again for being open about it.
Jack, I've had a number of discussions with you, and I've read through even more of your threads with folks on this forum. I'm pretty convinced that your discussions with people would be more productive if you reduced your use of this tautology.
I think your intent in deploying it is to challenge someone's line of reasoning when they stray too close to conflating consistency with evidence, of blurring observation with experiment. I think your intent is to make clear that the ball model's consistency with astronomical observations isn't evidence per se for the ball model.
But, as is the case in this thread, using the tautology almost always distracts from your point rather than clarifies it. Readers often assume (and you make it easy for them to assume) that you're setting up a straw man that says our observations literally, causally shape the world, which nobody you've talked to here actually thinks. It just sidetracks the conversation while you have to explain to the reader that:
I think your discussions would be better served if you found another way of raising this point. Maybe a way of explaining that of course any model of the world's shape needs to be consistent with our astronomical observations, but that consistency alone is only circumstantial evidence at best and is made weaker by the existence of any alternative models that are equally consistent with observation.
Just a thought from a reader.
Thanks for the feedback!
I think it’s hard to “break through” and really convey my meaning despite the verbiage - but you seem to have gotten it! Hopefully your rephrasing will be of use.
I think it is possible, as you suggest - that the statement is being misunderstood as some sort of witchcraft/“the secret” strawman - but it certainly isn’t in the statement itself. It doesn’t even apply / isn’t directed at or about the views of the “opponent” (which to me, they are not - they are merely the recipient in a conversation) which all strawmen need to be, by definition.
I’ll give it a whirl and try phrasing it differently when, inevitably, this point comes up in the future.
Thanks for listening!
That may be true of that statement in isolation, but it's a wider pattern in some of the things you say. For example, when the conversation recipient said this:
You responded first with:
I'm sure you're not trying to misrepresent the other person's point, but responses like that strike the reader (at least me) as either a strawman, deliberate obtuseness, or a severe misunderstanding. As you said, it would be silly to claim the observations change the actual path of the sun, which is why it seems obvious to me that that's not what they're suggesting. I'm pretty certain they're trying to point out what they see as an inconsistency between what we observe ("midnight Sun") and the predictions of a flat earth model ("the sun would pass over it every day").
I think a more appropriate response is to address their perceived inconsistency. Since it sounds like you accept observations of midnight sun, I think that means explaining how a midnight sun could be consistent with a flat earth.
Edit: I see you do offer such an explanation a couple paragraphs after the above quote, so I don't think you're misunderstanding their point. But I maintain that the intervening paragraphs about what a silly reasoning it would be if... are only hurting your clarity and liable to put your conversation partner on the defensive, which I believe is (usually) the opposite of what you're actually wanting to do.
Just more food for thought, and thanks again for being open about it.