Why Flat Earth? Or, Why Believe In The Impossible?
This is a question I get - in one form or another - very often when discussing Flat Earth Theory. "Why believe in a theory that has absolutely NO evidence to back it up?" people ask with an obvious flare of incredulity. How can I believe in a theory that completely negates over 300 years of discovery by some of the greatest minds humanity has produced? Am I out of my mind?
Perhaps.
But before we venture into the evidence supporting Flat Earth Theory (that's what the rest of this blog is for), it is important that a firm foundation of knowledge creation be established. More precisely: we must form a concise conception of how we know what we think we know; as well as the standards that determine the importance of information. The radical nature of Flat Earth Theory is due to the fact that it completely reworks the structure of physical reality, and catalyzes a fundamental shift in how individuals understand their own knowledge.
Mainstream science is broken. Real knowledge is almost dead. From the vast storehouse of digital data, knowledge need do nothing more than stroke a few keys to sate its bloated appetite: it never needs to rise from the armchair of facts. What has led to this state of affairs? Where did the thinkers that could understand understanding disappear to? Paradoxically, they unknowingly created the present state of affairs.
While I argue that their physical theories are in error, the early Spherist thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries possessed a level of genius that cannot be denied. Like the ancient Greeks before them, these men comprehended reality in a way that mainstream scientific thinking has lost. Specifically, society today has forgotten the fundamental importance of understanding ideas for their own sake. What is knowledge? Why is it important? How do we know it is important? The facts we choose to attach importance to, in turn become the facts that guide further exploration. For example, early Spherists like Newton realized the fundamental fact that material reality could be reduced down to its basic physical components, and that those components represented the basic causes of larger observed phenomena. This idea fostered the development of modern chemistry.
They failed to realize the consequences that the early scientific methodology of fact gathering would have on the future status of knowledge itself. Scientific methodology uses a presumptive set of theoretical standards where by it interprets and incorporates data in the process of generating knowledge:
Mainstream science is broken. Real knowledge is almost dead. From the vast storehouse of digital data, knowledge need do nothing more than stroke a few keys to sate its bloated appetite: it never needs to rise from the armchair of facts. What has led to this state of affairs? Where did the thinkers that could understand understanding disappear to? Paradoxically, they unknowingly created the present state of affairs.
While I argue that their physical theories are in error, the early Spherist thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries possessed a level of genius that cannot be denied. Like the ancient Greeks before them, these men comprehended reality in a way that mainstream scientific thinking has lost. Specifically, society today has forgotten the fundamental importance of understanding ideas for their own sake. What is knowledge? Why is it important? How do we know it is important? The facts we choose to attach importance to, in turn become the facts that guide further exploration. For example, early Spherists like Newton realized the fundamental fact that material reality could be reduced down to its basic physical components, and that those components represented the basic causes of larger observed phenomena. This idea fostered the development of modern chemistry.
But were they right?
Yes. But only partly so...
They failed to realize the consequences that the early scientific methodology of fact gathering would have on the future status of knowledge itself. Scientific methodology uses a presumptive set of theoretical standards where by it interprets and incorporates data in the process of generating knowledge:
And a brief glance at its methodology reveals that it is circular: a complex circularity, but circular none the less. One could argue that the above chart shows objective input of facts exterior to the system, that the materials science digests come from outside. And this is true. However, in what ways does the basic ideology of science filter those ideas that enter? In what ways do these determine the subsequent knowledge eventually generated? Today, science is not only circular: it is narrow and self contained. It mistakes the knowledge it generates with the condition of actually knowing. In effect, science has become disconnected from the principles of philosophical understanding that underlie the methodological processes it utilizes.
"But science deals with facts! FACTS! Unlike your pseudo-scientific, metaphysical flat earth hogwash, the facts are indisputable!"
And that is a prime example of the problem. The fundamental disconnect within science itself is not an inherent part of science: it is a lack of understanding among scientists themselves. Scientists and everyday proponents replace a rational pursuit of understanding with a pragmatic pursuit of facts. But facts do NOT represent indisputable truth as science believers maintain: facts merely serve as building blocks that rational human minds use to create structures of knowledge. The facts that science chooses to study, and analyze are determined by the minds of researchers themselves. But all minds contain bias; all thoughts originate from a thinker shaped by the social forces of the time and culture he lives within. Consequently, accepting "facts" as indisputable is not only inconsistent, it is dangerous. It infuses them with an aura of authority religious in nature. Rather than comprehending the processes of thought that led to the creation of theories like gravity, people accept gravitation as "fact". Doing so, they completely miss why such a theory became as important as it did: they see gravity as nothing more than "an early explanation of why things fall that is correct, and that exemplifies science." If culture and education had taught them that objects fall due to invisible hands that reach up from the ground and pull things down: such an idea would seem as perfectly rational as gravity. Why? Somewhere along the road "fact" and "theory" became exulted as the primary focus of science, and were appropriated to fill the void of religious skepticism prevalent in the late 19th century.
"So What Does This Have To Do With Believing In A Flat Earth?"
Google's search results for "philosophy etymology"
Everything! Flat Earth Theory involves a restoration of philosophy. Philosophy is the basis of all knowledge: without it facts are useless. In ancient Greece "philosophy" meant love of wisdom, a love of truth. That love was not sensual: it was inspirational and motivational in nature. In other words, a philosopher felt inspired or driven to pursue wisdom. The ancient Greeks reason gave wisdom meaning: it facilitated a rationality whose ultimate expression was ethical in nature. Love of wisdom (philosophy) legitimized right living through right thinking. Flat Earth Theory rejects the methodology of mainstream science and replaces it with a rational empiricism shaped by the observable facts of the physical world. Unlike the circular and socially biased methodology of science, FET moves quickly and directly from observed phenomena to simple inferences about how those phenomena reflect physical reality. For example, these pictures illustrate what everyday experience confirms:
The Horizon Is Flat!
Again, empirically observed phenomena such as the Flat horizon demonstrate the simplicity and effectiveness of FET (Flat Earth Theory). Moreover, FET reaffirms philosophy as an inseparable component in the pursuit of knowledge. The original inspiration of science stemmed from a passion to know the ultimate nature of reality: early scientists believed that the answers to metaphysical questions could be found in the natural world. Their passion involved inspiration, a "love of wisdom" as the ancient Greeks called it. And yet present day science disregards deeper questions of metaphysical meaning, confining itself to discovery focused on the material. However, FET follows the facts where they lead, regardless of the presumptions about where they should lead. It remembers that why given facts get analyzed is just as important as what these facts can show. True science focuses pragmatically on the "what" as well as rationalistically on the "why". Flat Earth theory incorporates both the "why" and the "what". Driven to understand the underlying principles of knowledge creation, the rational empiricist does not conflate the motivation of a theory with the objects it produces.
Ultimately, Flat Earth Theory Is Important Because Regardless of Whether The Earth Is Flat or Round, IT Lays An Ideological Framework From Which Questions of Meaning Can Fuse With Questions of Matter.
So read on if you dare. What you see will not make sense at first, it will clash with everything you assume to be true. But take a few moments to think critically and you may find the wedge of Flat Earth Theory forcing an opening in your pragmatic, socially hardened skull. If so remember: round or flat, "what" and "why" represent the most important questions capable of being asked. Take them, and question reality as one...
No comments:
Post a Comment