All yiu get is lame excuses and deflections
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (155)
sorted by:
A model of the flat Earth. It's literally there in the thread title.
As predicted, none of the flat Earthers is able to show one.
I know it is hard to hold multiple conversations simultaneously so i forgive you for forgetting who you are talking to and what we’ve already spoken about.
I already told you very clearly that, in regards to “model” in a scientific sense of the word, there is no such thing.
However, models aren’t used to determine reality - so not having one or having one is meaningless.
“Flat earthers” don’t really exist in the way they have been presented to you. They are agents and/or products of a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.
In any case, asking someone for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” they won’t be able to give it to you is pretty silly.
If you truly want to learn more about earnest flat earth research (as opposed to the psyop you seem to have some experience with), and why people who study it conclude ostensibly wild things (like that the world is not spherical the way we are taught) - please join us on flatearthresearch to exchange views!
Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware of flatearthresearch and yes I'll join. I want to learn more. I assume it's the website ending in .com
no, it’s not a website - it’s a community here on this site.
c/flatearthresearch
Thanks. Can you please give me the entire URL, doesn't seem to work for me.
Thank you for proving my point.
That is a nonsensical statement. A model can be an accurate representation of reality. Why are you unable to show a representation of a flat Earth?
As i said, that isn’t a “point”. Asking for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” no one will be able to give it to you is a fool’s errand.
Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. That is the “point” you are entirely missing. We don’t study models to understand anything about reality, we study reality and then build models for specific limited purpose. All models are wrong, but some are useful for a limited time.
Only because you have been encouraged to misunderstand what a model is and what it is for. Having a model that the earth is the center of the universe (geocentric model) - of which several currently exist - does not make it so. Do you understand what i’m saying? If not, please speak up / ask questions!
Possibly, but that is not their purpose. Models are built for specific use, but “accurate representation of reality” is not one of them. They are inherently built of a small (and flawed) subset of the data that comprises reality, which means they are always wrong and at absolute best incomplete. It’s godel’s proof by other verbiage.
We don’t study models to understand reality. We study reality to understand reality.
There are plenty of representations of a flat earth. Look up AE maps, and the gleason map. There are no maps without flaws, however - for the same reasons there are no models which are flawless either.
The point is that having a representation or not is irrelevant. The world is whatever shape it is despite what your conceptions, maps, models describe it as. Conceptions, maps, and models constantly change and are discarded/changed each generation as they stop serving their function and need to be. Through all of that, reality remains the same - and doesn’t care what we think or how we depict it.
Having a model, or not having a model, has no impact on reality.
So which map of the Flat Earth do you consider to be the most accurate one?