The earth is not flat, it's a rhombicosidodecahedron, which is an Archimedean solid, one of thirteen convex isogonal nonprismatic solids constructed of two or more types of regular polygon faces.

Flat Earthers
Alien Conspiracy Theorists
Lost Atlantis
Paranormal investigators
And my favorite Big Foot hunters

I want to find out what motivates people to believe in this type of “Alternative” philosophy. — SteveMinjares

It's probably the same motivation as "religious philosophy": fear of reality (onto/vera-phobia). Thus, magical, wishful or group thinking abetted by evidence-free beliefs (i.e. illusions of knowing) to rationalize these "alternative facts" or "post-truths". Tabloid sensationalism and social media videos satisfy many persons' visceral need for denial ( Ernest Becker). Path of least cognitive effort and easiest dopamine kick / social "belonging".

Btw, I really fancy Bostrom's (or Deutsch's quantum computational implied) Simulation Hypothesis. :sweat:

Which point of view is more objective.
The microscopic or macroscopic.
Far enough a way the earth looks like a shapeless blip
Closer, like a sphere
Closer, flat
Closer, neither flat nor curved exactly

How can you escape subjectivity? If there is no observer, which of the above perspectives would be true?

Lost Atlantis — SteveMinjares

Isn't this comes from Plato Dialogues? It is always been believed that this legend city existed in reality but it disappeared through the years.
Atlantis as It Was Told in Plato's Socratic Dialogues

Some researchers think this lost city existed in my homeland (Spain) :death: :eyes: HISTORIANS HAVE FINALLY ‘DISCOVERED’ ENCHANTED LOST CITY OF ATLANTIS IN SOUTHERN SPAIN

:100: :up:

In a sense, the Earth is both flat and round. On the surface of any sphere, there are flat (at least reasonably speaking) areas. If you're standing on the Earth, you will literally always be, technically, standing on a flat surface. Or on the very curve of it, which seems counterintuitive...

But I also suspect that, holographically, or in another dimension, what appears to us as round could literally have four corners and be flat.

Though I do give credence to our reality, where the Earth is a sphere, being just as valid.

So I say the Earth is round. And it is flat.

fear of reality (onto/vera-phobia) — 180 Proof

Bored with reality is more like it. For some people reality just isn't interesting enough, they want more! The only way they can get that extra kick out of life is by believing in weird stuff.

Path of least cognitive effort and easiest dopamine kick / social "belonging" — 180 Proof

Yep!

Which point of view is more objective.
The microscopic or macroscopic.
Far enough a way the earth looks like a shapeless blip
Closer, like a sphere
Closer, flat
Closer, neither flat nor curved exactly

How can you escape subjectivity? If there is no observer, which of the above perspectives would be true? — Yohan

Interesting. Flat-earthers claim is earth is flat. Is it? What do we mean by earth?

It's probably the same motivation as "religious philosophy": fear of reality — 180 Proof

:rofl:

You think a monk in his cell is 'escaping reality', then you have a serious problem of understanding.

I don't include 'paranormal investigations' in the same category as flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers. The fact that it is so included is actually kind of sad.

Interesting. Flat-earthers claim is earth is flat. Is it? What do we mean by earth? — TheMadFool

All definitions break down when we exercise rigorous precision. There is no meaning that is not vague.

Interesting. Flat-earthers claim is earth is flat. Is it? What do we mean by earth?
— TheMadFool
All definitions break down when we exercise rigorous precision. There is no meaning that is not vague. — Yohan

How so? The earth is the planet we're on. Is it flat or is it round?

I will admit to having a foot in the "alternative' philosophies, mainly with an open mind towards esoteric systems of thought. I used to read David Icke at one stage, but did think that he was 'over the top' in his conspiracy theories, especially his idea that the Royal Family were shapeshifting reptiles. I think that conspiracy theories can be dangerous if they are taken literally, but are quite useful as unusual ways of looking and thinking.
Apart from David Icke, I have read Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner and Benjamin Creme and many other alternative thinkers.

I read them less nowadays, especially since reading philosophy, in conjunction with reading and writing on this site. However, what is interesting is your choice of the words 'flat earth', because 'flatland' was the way Ken Wilber, a transpersonal philosopher, described many mainstream traditions of thought.

Personally, I like to read as widely as possible, and try to juggle various ways of thinking, ranging from the extremes of materialistic perspectives of determinism to the 'spiritual' alternatives of the esoteric thinkers. I believe that the 'truth' may be somewhere in between, but it is not clear and rigid because there is the whole symbolic dimension of reality. I believe that this may be why people are often drawn to the alternative philosophers.

How so? The earth is the planet we're on. Is it flat or is it round? — TheMadFool

If we are super exact, it is neither flat nor round. Just look at it closely. It only appears flat or round from a distance. Distance blurs the fine details, giving the illusion of a simple shape.

How can you escape subjectivity? If there is no observer, which of the above perspectives would be true? — Yohan

Even though I can see your point, I think ‘subjectivity’ is the wrong term. ‘Subjectivity’ implies taking one’s own predilections and inclinations too seriously, or not being detached or impartial. It is certainly true that ‘an observer’ is implied in any statement of what is real, and that this is something which is often overlooked or set aside. But that’s not the same as ‘subjectivity’.

All definitions break down when we exercise rigorous precision. There is no meaning that is not vague. — Yohan

You’ve probably never built a precision instrument, then.

If we are super exact, it is neither flat nor round. Just look at it closely. It only appears flat or round from a distance. Distance blurs the fine details, giving the illusion of a simple shape. — Yohan

Distance does nothing to the Earth. Distance only changes what part of the Earth you see and the detail that you can make out. So, like us, if you're close enough, you get to see only a small portion of the Earth's curvature producing the illusion of flatness. Plus, small enough, like we are, and you can see the bumps and dips (surface irregularities). Distance is about the observer, not the Earth which is round.

You think a monk in his cell is 'escaping reality', then you have a serious problem of understanding. — Wayfarer

:up:

Strawman as usual. I said nothing remotely about any "monk in his cell". Your knee-jerk defensiveness is telling, Woofarer.

Distance is about the observer, not the Earth which is round. — TheMadFool

Round or roundish?

what motivates people to believe in this type of “Alternative” philosophy — SteveMinjares

The word "alternative" is important! We have a set of observations and we need a good hypothesis that fits these observations. If you're creative enough you can concoct multiple hypotheses to explain observations. Some choose the mundane - simple hypotheses that go with observational data. Others tend to opt for more colorful, more elaborate hypotheses - these are what bigfoot, ancient aliens, flat-earth, etc. are all about.

While Occam's razor would have us adopt simpler hypotheses,

every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

Round or roundish? — Yohan

Well, round enough in my humble opinion. Just to set the record straight, you're right in that scale is important.The earth is flat at the human scale but the earth is defined at planetary scales not at atomic or cosmic scales and at that level of detail, earth is round (enough).

I said nothing remotely about any "monk in his cell". — 180 Proof

Except that religious philosophy, which presumably is what said monk adheres to, is NOT motivated by ‘escape from reality’. (corrected)

:roll:

pp

The earth is flat at the human scale but the earth is defined at planetary scales not at atomic or cosmic scales and at that level of detail, earth is round (enough). — TheMadFool

The earth is both what we see and walk on, which is somewhat flat and bumpy etc, as well as the round object we view from outer space.
Science investigates the earth from the human, atomic, and planetary scales. Neither geology nor cosmology have a more objective definition of the earth.
You would be right if the question is simply what shape is the earth from a planetary scale.
I didn't really answer the OPs question in the spirit it was asked.

There are no bad students, only bad teachers. So the saying goes.

People who believe weird things are all over the place. The efficient market hypothesis is a good example.

My belief is that the shape of the earth approximates that of a sphere, but that in everyday life we perceive it as flat and it is so for most practical purposes.

I don't know if this counts as "alternative philosophy", but there you are.

My basic view is
The majority is always wrong
Reality is stranger than fiction

Life is an amazing mystery, but we insist on reducing it down to our size.

Google definition of earth: the planet on which we live; the world.

Far enough a way the earth looks like a shapeless blip
Closer, like a sphere
Closer, flat — Yohan

Farther away in space and it doesn't even exist.

Farther away in time, back or forward, and it also doesn't even exist.

Google definition of earth: the planet on which we live; the world. — TheMadFool

Ok you win. Independent of any observer, the earth is round enough in my opinion. G'day