[mfoy_]

This is a bad analogy that makes it sound like you're defending flat-earthers.

It's like saying you use Hermeticism's Principle of Rhythm to build a pendulum-powered clock...

And unlike both Flat-Earth theory and Hermetics, Newton was actually demonstrably right. Flat-earthers and Hermeticists spin their theories out of whole cloth.

[ModelTheorist12]

The shape of the Earth is just a model [1] - an approximation. All models have margins of error. All models are wrong, some are useful [2]. The map is not the territory [3]. All scientific models are scale variant [4] e.g contextual.

Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability

When last did you take the curvature of the Earth into account when arranging your furniture?

Of course, you can always dismiss my perspective as "Just another nihilistic, depressed anti-realist"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance

[lidHanteyk]

The curvature of the Earth is already accounted for; my house sits upon a foundation of poured concrete which is leveled off and flattened locally. In this way, we also accounted for the gravitational geoid variation around the house. Honestly, I have to compensate more for the curvature of the floorboards!

[username90]

> When last did you take the curvature of the Earth into account when arranging your furniture?

I don't do that, but neither do I assume that the entire earth is flat just because my living room is. Saying that all theories are born equal is nonsense, some things are more correct than others.

[ModelTheorist12]

It doesn't matter what we SAY about the shape of the Earth though, does it?

It only matters how we use/apply those theories in practice.

Practical errors have consequences. Theoretical errors don't. It's just lip service without follow-through.

I can SAY that the Earth is triangular and nothing will happen. Q.E.D If you insist that it is in (some way) wrong or incorrect for me to say that the Earth is triangular. Well. The best I can do is to tell you to mind your own business.

I can't remember the last time the Earth's shape mattered to my practical, decision-making process.

[psychoslave]

>I can't remember the last time the Earth's shape mattered to my practical, decision-making process.

Did you use a GPS lately?

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....

[ModelTheorist12]

I used it yes. I didn't design it.

In all the times I've used a GPS - the shape of the Earth mattered not one bit to me.

[tim333]

I imagine flat earthers use GPS too and rationalise it somehow.

[ModelTheorist12]

No different to "round-earthers" using technology which uses "flat earth" as a simplifying assumption in the design (hello! Google Maps).

Neither party seems to want to acknowledge that the other party's model works just fine within its domain of applicability.

[gfodor]

Not necessarily. David Deutche argues that theories can be argued as having merit based upon if they are good or bad explanations, regardless of application. A good explanation is one that fits the data and is hard to vary. The flat earth theory fails on both.

[ModelTheorist12]

Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff.

All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being "acceptable error rate". "The Earth is flat" may be wrong, but it could be acceptably wrong to me.

This is tackled by model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ) and by this paper "To explain or to predict" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf )

[zentiggr]

Your false dichotomy is that sure, your flat-earth approximation is fine, but only on basically personal scales (up to a few miles or so).

You can't charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory because it will fail as soon as you scale up to horizon effects, and breaks completely when reaching planetary scale.

If you want to keep your flat theory in its applicable scale, fine. Just don't expect to project it outside of its useful scale.

Just like the Newtonian model works well until you reach the scales where relativistic effects demand the shift to relativity.

[username90]

But when you go out and try to spread your gospel that the earth is triangular then people will correctly tell you to shut up and read some books before arguing further.

[ModelTheorist12]

So can I tell you "shut up and consult some geodesic models" when you spread the gospel that Earth is round?

Because strictly and Mathematically speaking, Earth is NOT round. It's NOT spherical or oblate either.

Why do you selectively reject some approximations (models!), but accept others?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Terrestrial_Reference...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System

[ModelTheorist12]

Furthermore you are arguing my point. Relativism.

>some things are more correct than others.

On the relative scale of "very incorrect" to "very correct" descriptions of Earth's shape where does "real" start?

In relation to the geodesic systems (e.g ETRS89, NAD, WGS84 ) "round" is a very imprecise description of Earth's shape.

Is WSG84 more 'real' than ETRS89?

[brlewis]

To be clear, the flat earth theory is wrong, I don't subscribe to it, and yes I'm defending flat-earthers. I reserve the right to defend people I disagree with, and to point out ways that wrong ideas can occasionally translate into useful interactions with reality.