/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9973768
*if something isn't a construct it can't be proven

>>9973768
You're right, but its a trivial observation that everyone already knows about

>>9973768
That's a purely semantic argument, and is therefore meaningless beyond the context of its meaning, which isn't applicable outside of that context. Prove me wrong.

>>9973768
Burden of proof isn't about proving your claim is empirically correct, it's about providing the evidence (proof) that supports your claim.
Your claim could still be wrong, even though your evidence supports it, but that's not what is important. What is important is that you have some evidence that convinced you of that claims veracity.

>>9973780
>Your claim could still be wrong, even though your evidence supports it, but that's not what is important. What is important is that you have some evidence that convinced you of that claims veracity.

So Faith in observation?

>>9973833
Faith in utility.

>>9973768

>>9973833
That could be one way to put it.
Observations are not always what they appear to be. Hallucinations exist. Optical illusions exist.
When you make a personal observation you've putting faith in your senses, which may be misplaced. When you use equipment you're putting faith in the equipment, which could be incorrectly calibrated or faulty.
These can be mitigated by doing multiple observations, comparisons with knowns and other checking, of course.

>>9973858
Like a sunset?

>>9973881
In what way?

>>9973916
Setting behind the horizon, when it's actually just getting further away.

>>9973917
It's actually doing both.

>>9973937
Evidence?

>>9973946
I'll get back to you, I'm phone posting.
Feel free to post your evidence in the meantime.

>>9973961
Sun moving, or earth moving?

>>9973971
Not obvious either way.

>>9973989
You sure about that?

>>9973995
From that video, yes.
It doesn't suggest either more than the other.

>>9973999
This?

>>9973971
Both are moving. One is spinning,one is moving

>>9974040
What direction is the earth spinning in the video?

MY BUTTHOLE HURTS

>>9974010
Well, it's not a sphere so it suggest descending below the horizon more than moving further away.

>>9974048
Towards the viewer.

>>9974091
What's it disappearing behind?

>>9974108
The horizon.

>>9974054
Can't prove that

>>9973768

The very supposition that there is an objective reality that informs our stories that can be known by your hypothetical omniscient being itself is as unprovable as your omniscient being and your assertion that proof doesn't work to uncover it.

You put the cart before the horse in a universe that has no horses. You assume a proof can’t exist, then you create a juxtaposition of that assertion in the omniscient being's reality that creates the reality you say can’t be gotten to by proof.

You are assuming reality as your premise then are using the counter to proof, you call subjective observation to show proof can't work.

..I thing you are confused...

>>9974149
Well said.

>>9974010
Ya see, the top is what we expect from the Sun (or Moon) descending below the horizon, the bottom is what we expect from the Sun (or Moon) moving further away.
Objects moving further away get smaller, but there's not reason a circular object would become elongated just because of distance.

>>9974010
>>9974189
Here are another set of photos showing that the Sun clearly doesn't appear circular as it is setting behind the horizon.

>>9973768
I so want to force Kizuna A.I. to lick my banana.

There's also the problem that on a flat Earth with a close Sun and Moon, the Sun (and Moon) should also appear different sizes throughout the day, not only changing near the horizon. It would change even from one hour to the next, but be easily measurable between, say, 7am and 12 noon.

Not only that, but between summer and winter they would have different sizes in the sky, smaller in the winter than in the summer, even at noon.
One of these days I should really take a couple of photos of moonrise and peak with my 105mm lens as a fixed reference as it is much easier to check the Moon than the Sun (need to get some good ND filters for that), but even when you are lucky enough to get cloud or fog conditions where you can look directly at the Sun during the day it doesn't look larger than when it's at the horizon.

>>9974189
I was sure I attached this image to the post, but apparently not.

>There's no such thing as proof, prove me wrong
How? Your belief means that you can deny any and all proof on the basis that you do not believe in proof.

>>9974198
I can relate, I also want to rape 2.5d cartoon characters too anon