There are so many ways to approach this one, but at the end of the day it is all a red herring predicated upon a widely educated mistake.
The horizon does not curve at any altitude, because the horizon is not a physical location but an optical illusion. It is the limit of our vision, and presents as a perfectly flat horizontal line that surrounds us 360 degrees. The apparent curve seen in videos/pictures like this is always due to distortion (though the lens itself is only one source).
Because it is not (as we are mistaught) the “edge of the world”, it does not pertain to the shape of it - regardless of what that shape is. It’s as silly as saying that rainbows prove the curved shape of the world (or dome), and for very similar reasons.
The earth and its shape are down here! There is no sense (or science) in trying to get further away from it in order to measure that shape! That literally makes the shape harder to measure and science requires measurement (empiricism) not merely looking! There is very good reason for this - because what we see is often not what is. In the words of obi wan, “Your eyes can deceive you; don’t trust them”.
It’s all red herring and distraction. It’s something you have to get beyond if you want to earnestly penetrate the subject.
You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings, to gain increased knowledge about the location below that vantage point and it's surroundings, knowledge you may not so easily glean from the ground. Have you ever been orienteering? Do you get lost often?
You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings
It is unscientific to merely look, yes. Science (empiricism) requires measurement - for very good reason. It is not easier to measure things as you get farther and farther away from them.
It is both stupid and unscientific to go away from the earth, high in the sky, to measure the shape of the world. That is not the same thing as your misinterpretation, no.
Not exactly. The first step of the scientific method is observe, not merely look. In empiricism (aka science), observation means measurement.
The scientific method also has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The scientific method is not used to establish/determine natural/scientific law, like the shapes of various things - which we are discussing.
Besides, when you properly know what the horizon is - the whole line of reasoning becomes foolish. Even if the optical illusion of the horizon curved, it wouldn’t establish the shape of the world. The entire thing is a red herring.
One of the reasons that repeated and rigorous measurement is required in science is because what we see is often not what is - especially from a great distance.
Measurement cannot exist without looking. Looking is the essence of measurement. Obtaining a view with more information (ie. going higher to see more) is going to improve your over all measurement determinations, not subtract from them. Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
Looking may lead to measuring, but no - it is not the essence of it.
Is it harder to measure without eyes, sure - it’s harder to live without them. Are eyes necessary to measure (or live)? of course not - don’t be silly!
Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
You seem to be overly fixated on minutia here. The main point is that the horizon is an optical illusion, not the “edge of the world” which we could study/measure/look at to determine its shape.
Ah, the classics.
There are so many ways to approach this one, but at the end of the day it is all a red herring predicated upon a widely educated mistake.
The horizon does not curve at any altitude, because the horizon is not a physical location but an optical illusion. It is the limit of our vision, and presents as a perfectly flat horizontal line that surrounds us 360 degrees. The apparent curve seen in videos/pictures like this is always due to distortion (though the lens itself is only one source).
Because it is not (as we are mistaught) the “edge of the world”, it does not pertain to the shape of it - regardless of what that shape is. It’s as silly as saying that rainbows prove the curved shape of the world (or dome), and for very similar reasons.
The earth and its shape are down here! There is no sense (or science) in trying to get further away from it in order to measure that shape! That literally makes the shape harder to measure and science requires measurement (empiricism) not merely looking! There is very good reason for this - because what we see is often not what is. In the words of obi wan, “Your eyes can deceive you; don’t trust them”.
It’s all red herring and distraction. It’s something you have to get beyond if you want to earnestly penetrate the subject.
"Don't trust your lying eyes, goy! There is no truth but mine; everything else is fake"
No, we don’t just “trust our eyes” in science. That would be stupid.
Notably, this “just trust your eyes” position is used by many flat earthers to “prove” the world is flat.
Your contrived/fabricated statement becomes :
“Don’t trust your lying eyes! The world only looks flat, but is actually spherical because there is no truth but mine; everything else is fake”
You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings, to gain increased knowledge about the location below that vantage point and it's surroundings, knowledge you may not so easily glean from the ground. Have you ever been orienteering? Do you get lost often?
It is unscientific to merely look, yes. Science (empiricism) requires measurement - for very good reason. It is not easier to measure things as you get farther and farther away from them.
It is both stupid and unscientific to go away from the earth, high in the sky, to measure the shape of the world. That is not the same thing as your misinterpretation, no.
Objective visible observations are part of scientific method
Not exactly. The first step of the scientific method is observe, not merely look. In empiricism (aka science), observation means measurement.
The scientific method also has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The scientific method is not used to establish/determine natural/scientific law, like the shapes of various things - which we are discussing.
Besides, when you properly know what the horizon is - the whole line of reasoning becomes foolish. Even if the optical illusion of the horizon curved, it wouldn’t establish the shape of the world. The entire thing is a red herring.
One of the reasons that repeated and rigorous measurement is required in science is because what we see is often not what is - especially from a great distance.
Measurement cannot exist without looking. Looking is the essence of measurement. Obtaining a view with more information (ie. going higher to see more) is going to improve your over all measurement determinations, not subtract from them. Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
You can’t really think that.
Looking may lead to measuring, but no - it is not the essence of it.
Is it harder to measure without eyes, sure - it’s harder to live without them. Are eyes necessary to measure (or live)? of course not - don’t be silly!
You seem to be overly fixated on minutia here. The main point is that the horizon is an optical illusion, not the “edge of the world” which we could study/measure/look at to determine its shape.