Hypotheses? Forget About It!

[surreptitious57]

It might not be an absolutely perfect oblate spheroid but that is the most accurate term that there is
That is due to a deficiency in the language of geometry rather than in the precision of measurements

[Univalence]

It may not be an absolutely perfect oblate spheroid but that is the most accurate term that there is
That is due to a deficiency in the language of geometry rather than the precision of measurements

So sum this up then, anything that is not correct is incorrect therefore the following descriptions of Earth are absolutely wrong and therefore false?

Flat.
Round.
Circular
Spherical

Me? I like the word 'triangular'. Sounds better. Earth is triangular.

I am going to say that from now on. Just to piss of the Flat-earthers AND the Round-Earthers and all the other angry defenders of the shape of the Earth.

[surreptitious57]

Alternatively you could just describe it without making any reference to its shape
So its a rocky planet and in its solar sytstem is the third one from the star it orbits

[Univalence]

So its a rocky planet and in its solar sytstem is the third one from the star it orbits

Marshmallow-flavoured spongy inside?

[A_Seagull]

Nevertheless, it is always possible to know if what one believes is based on reason from the evidence reality presents and therefore true.

You mean like the Earth is flat? It is a rational conclusion from the evidence. And therefore 'true'?

It is not a rational conclusion from the evidence, it is a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence. The ability to know does not require omniscience.

So if I understand you correctly, the Earth used to be flat but now it is round?

[Atla]

Only that knowledge which correctly describes aspects of reality is truth. Everything else is superstition, credulity, or simply ignorance. No choices based on what is not true, that is, based on what incorrectly describes reality, can possibly succeed.

So how can you be 100% sure that the Earth isn't actually cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions?

Or that you aren't actually living in a simulation, in a big holodeck situated on a flat planet?

[surreptitious57]

You cannot be certain about anything at all but just have to trust your senses and cognition as that is all you have
You have to accept as a given some basic axioms simply as a means of understanding that what appears to be real
So I think I exist - I think others exist too - I think reality is mind independent - I think some of it can be explained

[RCSaunders]

So if I understand you correctly, the Earth used to be flat but now it is round?

You do not understand me correctly and that could only be if you are intentionally obfuscating what I wrote. No one can actually be that lacking in comprehension.

[RCSaunders]

If you reject omniscience as knowledge-criterion, then you are necessarily talking about relativistic knowledge.

Relative to what? Knowledge is only about what one does know. It is not necessary to know everything, to know anything. Do you not know the language you use? Do you not know if you do not have oxygen you will die? Do you not know where you live, what you do for a living and how to do it. Do you really know nothing at all?

Much of our knowledge is about the relationships between things such as the relationships between the chemical elements in chemical compounds, the physical relationships that make modern machinery possible, and the relationships in electronic components in all electronic devices; but the knowledge is not "relativistic."

[RCSaunders]

So how can you be 100% sure that the Earth isn't actually cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions?

I only know what shape the earth is in the dimensions of which I am conscious. As for so-called other dimension, until you have demonstrated there are such things, (and how it would make any difference if there were), its not something to be known. I certainly won't be making any choices based on some presumed other shape of the earth, and either will all the scientists involved in the development of geo-stationary and other satellites.

Or that you aren't actually living in a simulation, in a big holodeck situated on a flat planet?

I am amazed that people are still influenced by this kind of sophistry. I first ran across this kind of question in the form of, "how do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a human being?" It was a so-called professor of philosophy who asked the question, and he was serious. I could not believe anyone with such a defective mind could be taken seriously by anyone.

Your question is wrong for the same reason his was. Your question presumes the answer to the questions: 'what is a simulation?' and what does it mean to be, 'living in one?' Before something can be defined as a simulation, the reality it simulates must be identified. Since simulations are fake, nothing lives in them. I have no interest in convincing you what is wrong with your question. I'm only explaining how I know it is meaningless.

[Atla]

So how can you be 100% sure that the Earth isn't actually cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions?

I only know what shape the earth is in the dimensions of which I am conscious. As for so-called other dimension, until you have demonstrated there are such things, (and how it would make any difference if there were), its not something to be known. I certainly won't be making any choices based on some presumed other shape of the earth, and either will all the scientists involved in the development of geo-stationary and other satellites.

Or that you aren't actually living in a simulation, in a big holodeck situated on a flat planet?

I am amazed that people are still influenced by this kind of sophistry. I first ran across this kind of question in the form of, "how do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a human being?" It was a so-called professor of philosophy who asked the question, and he was serious. I could not believe anyone with such a defective mind could be taken seriously by anyone.

Your question is wrong for the same reason his was. Your question presumes the answer to the questions: 'what is a simulation?' and what does it mean to be, 'living in one?' Before something can be defined as a simulation, the reality it simulates must be identified. Since simulations are fake, nothing lives in them. I have no interest in convincing you what is wrong with your question. I'm only explaining how I know it is meaningless.

Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).

But we can never exclude the possibility of such things. Being 100% certain of truths and excluding such possibilities is actually the sign of a defective mind.

[Univalence]

If you reject omniscience as knowledge-criterion, then you are necessarily talking about relativistic knowledge.

Relative to what? Knowledge is only about what one does know. It is not necessary to know everything, to know anything. Do you not know the language you use? Do you not know if you do not have oxygen you will die? Do you not know where you live, what you do for a living and how to do it. Do you really know nothing at all?

I notice you have switched tact. From talking about the shape of the Earth to knowing details about myself

I know myself , yes.
I don't know the shape of the Earth.

Much of our knowledge is about the relationships between things such as the relationships between the chemical elements in chemical compounds, the physical relationships that make modern machinery possible, and the relationships in electronic components in all electronic devices; but the knowledge is not "relativistic."

And all those things work. Until they don't.

The application of knowledge is an ethical concern.

If I am building a coffee table my simplifying assumption is "the Earth is flat" without any negative consequences.
If I am building a navigation system for a passenger airplane - I can't make that assumption safely.

[RCSaunders]

Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).

But we can never exclude the possibility of such things. Being 100% certain of truths and excluding such possibilities is actually the sign of a defective mind.

If it is defective to refuse to fill one's mind with ideas for which there is neither evidence or reason, than I prefer a defective mind. I refuse to accept as a possibility every crackpot idea invented by every neurotic on the planet for the sole reason that I cannot prove it is not true (although most cannot be true without contradicting what is known to be true). I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind, but it has to be evidence that can be either directly perceived, or based on the fact of perception, or deduced by non-contradictory reason from one of these.

[Univalence]

I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In goal-directed activities counter-factual thinking is quite useful.

[Atla]

Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).

But we can never exclude the possibility of such things. Being 100% certain of truths and excluding such possibilities is actually the sign of a defective mind.

If it is defective to refuse to fill one's mind with ideas for which there is neither evidence or reason, than I prefer a defective mind. I refuse to accept as a possibility every crackpot idea invented by every neurotic on the planet for the sole reason that I cannot prove it is not true (although most cannot be true without contradicting what is known to be true). I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind, but it has to be evidence that can be either directly perceived, or based on the fact of perception, or deduced by non-contradictory reason from one of these.

No need to be hysterical. Filling one's mind with every crackpot idea isn't quite the same as simply accepting the fact that what we consider to be true could turn out to be false, thanks to some new evidence.