Originally posted by moonbusIt had everything to do with belief. And I disagree that they saw different things. They came to different conclusions, yes.
Further example: when Galileo looked through his telescope at the moons of Saturn, he saw circular orbits; when the churchmen looked through their telescopes at the moons of Saturn, they saw spirals within spirals.
That's nothing to do with beliefs about history and everything to do with thoughts (or thought-systems, e.g. Ptolemaic or Copernican).
Galileo was forbidden not only to say the earth moved or that the sun was at the center of the solar system, he was forbidden even to think such things, on pain of death by slow torture.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
That was the significance of forcing people to renounce heresy "without reservation". Having a " reservation" meant something like 'I'm saying X but I'm not really believing it, I'm crossing my fingers behind my back.' It was crucial to the Church to control people's thoughts. Why? Because thoughts matter.
I agree. Religion very often tries to control what people think - or more often, suppress what people think.
15 Oct 15
Originally posted by moonbusDo you know that the Pacific Islanders thought that the Earth was flat? I suspect that it's only the Mediterranean cultures that thought that because the distances they had to cover are comparatively short. The Pacific cultures tended to use things like ocean swells and astronavigation, I don't know that they were using lodestones.
The islands of the Pacific were inhabited before people knew the Earth was round.
With astronavigation one tends to head for a point on the horizon and so it is natural to travel along a great circle. With compass navigation the natural move is to attempt to maintain a constant bearing, which results in what is known as a Rhumb line. So the effect I'm talking about wouldn't be a problem to flat-earthers using astronavigation.
15 Oct 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat makes you think Mediterranean cultures thought the earth was flat? It is more a case of some thought it was flat, some didn't, and the majority didn't care.
I suspect that it's only the Mediterranean cultures that thought that because the distances they had to cover are comparatively short.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat are the value of thoughts?
There is an obvious battle of thought evident in the world today, and this forum is but a microcosm of that fight.
This reality, however, does not address the underlying question: [b]why does a person's thoughts matter?
Even this question requires further clarification and articulation, as it is evident how some thought-inspired actions are conne ...[text shortened]... ctical applications to a person's life would be altered by a belief on such a topic, either way?[/b]
A thought is meaningless, unless we give it value. The world is what it is, as such it has no value until someone or something assigns it value. To say that the climate is changing is a thought without value unless you then add to that thought that the climate warming is "bad" and that there is something you can personally do to change that "bad" scenario.
Really what is being discussed here are belief systems. Belief systems are necessary for finite and limited intellects who are trying to make sense of the world around them. We often don't have the time nor intellectual ability to prove everything we believe. If you want a "proof", go take a math class.
What we are then left with are correlations and things that make sense to us. Unfortunately, there are also those who have agendas so they twist the truth and belief systems in an effort to achieve a specific agenda. This is perhaps the most sinister aspect of the thought process and perhaps we don't even realize we are doing it. You have either something to gain or something to lose when faced with the reality of the situation, so at times it seems the thing to do is to reshape reality in your favor. What is even more distressing is the realization that we have all done this at times to some degree. That's why humility is such an important aspect to our intellect.
No matter our thoughts, there will always be some that are incorrect or "bad". There is no way around it. However, what we do with those thoughts is up to us.
It's like I heard a pastor say once regarding thoughts. "Thoughts are like birds. They pass overhead and there is precious little you can do about it, but that does not mean you must let them nest on your head. That sir, is a choice."
15 Oct 15
I don't know that the peoples who first sailed the Pacific and discovered islands there thought or believed the Earth was flat. Maybe they just set sail without giving the matter of the planet's shape much thought. The point is that it is false that one must believe the Earth to be round in order to navigate. Navigation by sighting stars on the horizon, or along coastlines, does not presuppose or require knowledge of the shape of the planet.
Similarly, the positions of the planets can be accurately calculated and predicted without knowing that the sun and not the Earth is at the center of the solar system. The Ptolemaic system did accurately predict the positions of all the known planets.
False beliefs, beliefs which do mot match reality, are not necessarily dysfunctional.
15 Oct 15
1 edit
Whodey: "Really what is being discussed here are belief systems." On the whole, I agree: isolated thoughts have little significance. But once in a while, a thought refreshes parts of you other beers cannot reach and a paradigm shift is set in motion. Ask an adult who suddenly 'got' religion, or who suddenly fell away from religion; they often report that some ultimately quite simple but profound insight came to them "in a flash" and changed their worldview.
15 Oct 15
Originally posted by moonbusBut eventually they are. Humans develop their economies in one way or another. This leads to attempts to do things that the theories they hold do not adequately describe. Refusal to accept that the old ideas are inadequate leads to failure.
I don't know that the peoples who first sailed the Pacific and discovered islands there thought or believed the Earth was flat. Maybe they just set sail without giving the matter of the planet's shape much thought. The point is that it is false that one must believe the Earth to be round in order to navigate. Navigation by sighting stars on the ...[text shortened]... lanets.
False beliefs, beliefs which do mot match reality, are not necessarily dysfunctional.
Besides, this is a bit of a strawman. The statement that navigation relies on the curvature of the earth was intended to convey that the curvature of the earth has profound consequences for it, it was not a statement that having a theory of the shape of the earth is an absolute necessity for practical navigation. My point to FreakyKBH was that scientists now can hardly hold the opinion that the world is flat. Any attempt to produce navigational methods which assume the earth is flat is doomed. You'd need a really tortuous theory to explain a loxodromic trajectory without the earth being a sphere. Incidentally, the Vikings were well aware that the earth was a sphere, but they traveled longer distances.
Originally posted by moonbusThe former method is certainly greatly improved by such knowledge. Accurate navigation over large distances generally does require taking the curvature of the earth into account. That people ancient and modern can navigate without significant accuracy is also true.
Navigation by sighting stars on the horizon, or along coastlines, does not presuppose or require knowledge of the shape of the planet.
I do think that anyone in the modern day and age who believes the earth is flat could not reasonably be called a 'scientist'. I would say the same applies to YECs, but that is a bit more debatable.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI disagree. Religion does no such thing. The ones trying to control what people think, or suppress what people think, are evil people, whether within a religion or without.
I agree. Religion very often tries to control what people think - or more often, suppress what people think.
15 Oct 15
Originally posted by moonbusSorry to reply twice, but twhitehead alerted me to this. The point I was trying to make was that when one uses astronavigation by picking a star and sailing towards that star then the selected star doesn't change its apparent position in the sky as one sails towards it; no correction for the curvature of the earth is necessary - although one does have to correct for the apparent rotation of the entire heavens. In that case it doesn't matter if one has a flat earth belief. If one works out where North is by finding Polaris and then sails on a bearing relative to that then the course followed will be a loxodrome. So the method of astronavigation matters, they'll need to account for that.
I don't know that the peoples who first sailed the Pacific and discovered islands there thought or believed the Earth was flat. Maybe they just set sail without giving the matter of the planet's shape much thought. The point is that it is false that one must believe the Earth to be round in order to navigate. Navigation by sighting stars on the ...[text shortened]... lanets.
False beliefs, beliefs which do mot match reality, are not necessarily dysfunctional.
They will have had some account of the cosmos, if their account had a flat earth and they did not know about compasses then it makes no sense to talk about a pole, but suppose the world's a disc and call the centre the pole. North (or South) is simply the heading which is towards the point the heavens rotate around. From an arbitrary point on the surface of our flat world this won't be in the same direction. So in the absence of magnetic measurements the rhumb line is unexplainable. If our pole is magnetic then one could explain the course deviation, but one then has to explain why magnetic and astronomical North are more or less the same at all points on the Earth's surface.
They will have noticed the effects and cultures that regularly embarked on long sea journeys would either have a cosmology with a spherical Earth, or will have had to accept contradictions between their account of cosmology and what they observe, which strikes me as unlikely to be sustained for any amount of time.
15 Oct 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't know that it is necessary to explain travel or distances on the surface in loxodromic terms.
But eventually they are. Humans develop their economies in one way or another. This leads to attempts to do things that the theories they hold do not adequately describe. Refusal to accept that the old ideas are inadequate leads to failure.
Besides, this is a bit of a strawman. The statement that navigation relies on the curvature of the earth was ...[text shortened]... ly, the Vikings were well aware that the earth was a sphere, but they traveled longer distances.
Whatever thought one has about the surface and its underlying shape therein has little to no bearing on one's success in traversing the same: unarmed in perfect ignorance or armed with correct or incorrect ideas can yield the same results.
On open water, much more is dependent upon the local weather than anything else.
15 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh yes it is. Set out thinking you are travelling West-North-West and you'll find yourself in a completely different position to the one you thought you would. The Pacific Islanders traveled across huge distances, end up in the wrong place and you are stuck at sea without fresh water.
I don't know that it is necessary to explain travel or distances on the surface in loxodromic terms.
Whatever thought one has about the surface and its underlying shape therein has little to no bearing on one's success in traversing the same: unarmed in perfect ignorance or armed with correct or incorrect ideas can yield the same results.
On open water, much more is dependent upon the local weather than anything else.
But the basic point is that no account based on a flat earth can correctly describe what one has to do to navigate correctly. Someone who believes in a flat earth theory has no claim on the title of scientist. One's account of the world is required to reproduce observation, not fly in the face of it. You need to find a better example.