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:
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?
I don’t care much for cartography.
Maps, much like models - and for the same reasons, are tools for specific use (typically, travel). As long as a map is useful, it continues to be used.
We don’t study maps to measure what shape anything is. It is a common, and encouraged, mistake to confuse/conflate topography with topology. They are separate and distinct.
There are many AE maps that are useful enough for our travel purposes, but this is different than representative of / accurate for the entire world. There are no flawless maps, and this doesn’t vary with the conception of the shape of the world.
Thanks again for proving the point of my thread.
Ask someone who accepts a globe earth to show a map or model and they will be happy to do it.
Ask the same of a flat earther and they wriggle and deflect and try to get into philosophical discussions but they simply won't tell you who the Flat Earth looks like because they know that any map or model that is out there is bullshit.