My association with ‘Flat Earth theory’ about begins and ends with somebody bringing it up as an object of ridicule. I think they usually bring this up because it’s a starting point almost everybody can agree on. Then after that the discussion probably starts to move towards other supposed conspiracy theories that are probably a bit more questionable—and probably political. My opinion on this is encapsulated in this quote perfectly: “If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” To me, that’s what science is. It’s premised off a highly shaky foundation, so to look to it for absolute truth I think is wrong. Then I can’t count how many times I’ve seen some scientist or mathematician who may be very smart in their field of expertise, but is just absolutely clueless outside of it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing is they’re humble about it, but often times they’ll begin talking like they know everything. Science is useful because with it we can create new things. It’s useful to the extent it can do that.
But, I don’t think anybody can prove conclusively the Earth is round. All of the information we know from science we get through our sense, but the senses deceive. We have no contact to the external world except through our senses. I mean just think about it. When you’re sleeping you’ve probably had dreams before where you couldn’t establish whether you’re awake or asleep. We can experience things like this that are so common among humans that they were even given their own name - talking about words like ‘hallucination’ or ‘mirage’. Then once doubt comes in, all the information we think we know comes crumbling down. We’re left with only our own consciousness which we can ascertain. But then why does this consciousness need to be a free consciousness? I know it sounds like science fiction, but it’s perfectly as plausible as the Earth being round.
Practically speaking, the answers of science are a lot more useful. Scientists will make fun of philosophers because all they’ve ever done is debate for literally thousands of years. Yet, just because it’s more practical doesn’t make it true. If you’re building a rocket and you need to make calculations, it’s completely idle to think: “Well this world could possibly be an illusion, so how would I make sure I can make this calculation with 100% certainty.” You’d never finish that calculation and therefore make no progress. But, I think it’s a mistake to look at science for questions like the nature of death, of human consciousness, or whether there is a God or not. Science doesn’t contain the answers to those questions. Science “begin[s] with doubt” and ends in certainties. So, practically speaking, the Earth is round, but if pursuing absolute truth then a flat Earth may be just as plausible as a round one.
Then science likes to make fun of the concept of God or Gods a lot, but think about it. How would you go about proving the non-existence of something? I think the position of atheism is pretty extreme. ArgumentsLinks to an external site. like those of Aquinas I think at least deserve consideration. You could also assent that there possibly might be a God (creator), but it’s likely not Jehovah, Allah, or the Pantheon. Then one question I’d further like to ask, is why do people boast so much of the scientific worldview? The view of the world presented by science is not a nice one.
I watched the video with Joe Rogan and Neil deGrasse Tyson. He says, “It’s just as intellectually lazy to believe everything you see, as it is to deny everything you see.” Now, I’m not sure if he was talking about this more in the things you come across the internet sense or in a philosophical sense. Problem is, scientists are guilty of the former and philosophers are guilty of the latter. Often times such people will never really see eye to eye, though there are plenty of exceptions. If you ask me though (and maybe it’s because science has more pull over philosophy/religion in our society) I think scientists are more guilty in general than philosophers are. Realistically, at the end of the day, philosophers are able to distinguish between speculations and our ‘reality’ because it’s an ability most of us were given just by being human. I think the best solution to this is really to pursue science, but all the knowledge of science should be qualified. Science doesn’t need to be absolute truth to be useful. If it is useful then that is a good enough reality I think.
I don’t have high expectations of the book. I expect to get lectured to and told the exact same things the paper has said for years. If I wanted to read something like this I’d open up the front page of the New York Wastepaper or something like that. Think if you want to teach people critical thinking then something like Descartes’ Meditations or Plato’s ethical dialogues would serve that purpose much better.
