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.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
A blind person's ability to measure is greatly inhibited by their lack of lack of vision. The physical distances and shapes of things that they can accurately measure are very few and require direct physical contact, and/or memory from when they had vision, and /or information and tools given to them or created by people who have functioning vision. Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion, including how the horizon appears flat from lower down. I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going. Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
You only believe this because of your bias that what i am saying has to be bullshit. You cannot earnestly or objectively evaluate with such a bias, and in reality it is a conditioned response to protect your worldview.
Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
It isn’t contrarian to point out that measuring and vision are separate and distinct. Measurement is done with many tools, none of which are the human eye (for good reason!).
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion
No, you’re being silly again. I never said that everything was an optical illusion, i only said that the horizon was. Did you really misunderstand me, or do you just want to for rhetorical and rationalizational purpose? If you really think i said, or implied, that everything the human eye sees is an endless optical illusion, please quote what i said which made you think that so that we can discuss it.
I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going
I share your loathing for sophistry. There are few i dislike more than the simulationists/holosexuals. Perish the thought! I’m talking about demonstrably observable (i.e. measurable!), manifest objective reality and science.
The horizon is an optical illusion, not a place. We were mistaught about it. No bullshit, no holographic simulation, no “everything is just an optical illusion created by your mind” - hippy dippy nonsense.
Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
And you will always presume/imagine it is so unless you take the time to understand the logic and reason! Asking questions would be a good first step! Assuming you already understand, and making erroneous statements based on your flawed assumptions is not a good way to learn about the perspectives of others.
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.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
A blind person's ability to measure is greatly inhibited by their lack of lack of vision. The physical distances and shapes of things that they can accurately measure are very few and require direct physical contact, and/or memory from when they had vision, and /or information and tools given to them or created by people who have functioning vision. Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion, including how the horizon appears flat from lower down. I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going. Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
You only believe this because of your bias that what i am saying has to be bullshit. You cannot earnestly or objectively evaluate with such a bias, and in reality it is a conditioned response to protect your worldview.
It isn’t contrarian to point out that measuring and vision are separate and distinct. Measurement is done with many tools, none of which are the human eye (for good reason!).
No, you’re being silly again. I never said that everything was an optical illusion, i only said that the horizon was. Did you really misunderstand me, or do you just want to for rhetorical and rationalizational purpose? If you really think i said, or implied, that everything the human eye sees is an endless optical illusion, please quote what i said which made you think that so that we can discuss it.
I share your loathing for sophistry. There are few i dislike more than the simulationists/holosexuals. Perish the thought! I’m talking about demonstrably observable (i.e. measurable!), manifest objective reality and science.
The horizon is an optical illusion, not a place. We were mistaught about it. No bullshit, no holographic simulation, no “everything is just an optical illusion created by your mind” - hippy dippy nonsense.
And you will always presume/imagine it is so unless you take the time to understand the logic and reason! Asking questions would be a good first step! Assuming you already understand, and making erroneous statements based on your flawed assumptions is not a good way to learn about the perspectives of others.