[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

[Ray Saintonge]

steve v wrote:

>Using the Flat Earth example again, the FES's notions
>are generally unclear in terms of whether they are
>actually sincere (still), or that they might be
>speaking metaphorically, or IMHO from the POV of human
>experience. Thus it can rather ridiculous to talk in
>terms of science, without explaining what their actual
>point is, which might be something like: 
> 'Thinking about the Earth as round is only a
>conceptual construct which also requires thinking
>along notions of complex relativity-- in real life, we
>intrinsically think of the world as Euclidian, and
>therefore, "flat." The FES might just be claiming that
>the religious view that all souls be on the same
>plane, or else that in personal terms, thinking in
>global terms is just a waste of precious time. 
>
>IOW: While its easy to call such people stupid, its
>hard to say exactly objectively what such group
>actually represents. Skpeptical "science" (ie. science
>POV) doesnt offer insight into this basic aspect. The
>articles talk about FES "models" of the Earth,
>assuming that models are the actual *point* of the
>group--the physical descriptions may be quite
>irrelevant.
>
The difficulty here with the FES POV is that we're not hearing it from 
FES supporters.  We have no evidence of what they still believe.  It's 
very easy to overcome such a group's arguments when the only ones they 
have are the ones we have imputed to them.

Ec