No. You just have to take their word for it that the Earth is flat and just believe it.
Or you could actually think things through and realize that a flat earth is the only logical conclusion.
I'm incredibly simple. Help me think things through and tell me more about logic.
I'd start with Earth Not A Globe. He has simple experiments that you can recreate yourself proving the shape of the earth. The full text is free online here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
Yeah, I looked at that and I used logic to decide it was bunk as he misrepresented many, many things, didn't measure many things that would factor in, and so on. Oh, I also found this in a critical analysis:
Garwood's flat-Earthers employ a peculiar brand of inverted logic to bulwark their odd beliefs. Samuel Rowbotham, who lectured and wrote widely about the flat Earth in the mid-1800s under the pseudonym "Parallax," described the Earth as a flat, stationary disk centered on the North Pole, ringed at its outer edges by an impenetrable barrier of ice. The Sun circled overhead, only a few hundred miles up, and the Moon and stars were luminous bodies not much farther away. If challenged during a speech, Rowbotham would confidently cite abstruse technicalities or invent spurious data. What caused day and night if the Earth did not turn? The "expansion and contraction of the solar path" and a "special law of perspective." Since we can't see the North Star from south of the equator, isn't the Earth round? Not so: on 23 January, 1862, the North Star was seen from a spot 23 degrees south of the equator. The speaker's resolve in the face of tough counterclaims was enough to persuade at least a few members of his audience.
Citation: Marschall, Laurence A. "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea.(Book review)." Natural History 117.7 (Sept 2008): 36(2).
Huh, I will agree that most of what he said was fairly spurious.