[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.

[psychoslave]

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

There are two very different points here.

Yes you can make most of your daily actions with a "flat earth" model. Actually, this is even an overkill model for most daily actions. A first person video game generally don't include such a model, so you can extrapolate that a "sight sized box model" is enough, and that any concept of earth is superfluous.

Then you have the part of you that seek to find a model of the world through concordant items of evidence, be it for practical reasons or simply for the matter of trying to make sense out of them.

You can use a GPS without any specific opinion on physical models. But you won't even send a satellite in space with an attitude stuck into a "my flat earth model is true" belief. That doesn't mean physical models that are used to put satellite on orbits are true, but at least they proved accurate enough to lead to that kind of exploits.

[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.

[ModelTheorist12]

You seem to be agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone. Instrumentalism [1] is precisely what I am rooting for.

That's exactly what I said in my OP: "All scientific models are scale variant e.g contextual."

>You can't charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory

The exact same criticism can be laid upon your local approximation.

You have chosen precisely the scale at which your 'general model' works. And you have ignored all other scales at which your 'general model' doesn't work.

You are chery-picking your scale - the domain of applicability of your model.

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

And what if you go the other way? At quantum scale neither Newton nor Einstein works.

>Just don't expect to project it outside of its useful scale

That's exactly what I said also: "Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability."

So I don't see how you could possibly be appealing to any notion of a 'general theory' without also coming up with a 'general and objective utility function'. What may be a useful to a Quantum Physicist needs not be useful to a Cosmologist.

The only hope for a 'general theory' is the Theory of Everything. We don't have one of those. Well, physicists don't - theists do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

[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?