It looks that way

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

You are trying to argue logic with people who claim to believe that the earth is flat.  What is wrong with this picture?

I was curious whether someone here manages to counter my argument while still remaining within the confines of logic, or whether all I'll get is avoidance and inconsistency.

I am assuming that you have read past threads in order to come up with your question.  You need to feed them an opening in order to get a response.  Something like, "If the earth is accelerating upwards, then why does a helium balloon rise?  Is it accelerating faster than the Earth is accelerating?"  You have to give them wiggle room in order to get a response.  Otherwise, we are all preaching to the coir. 

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

I just wish the FERs would refer people to something other than a text that was written before the internal combustion engine was invented. 

And, thanks for explaining why Zetetic science is false.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

This specifically is the reason I come to this website. Pseudo science based on false assumptions only ever performed by two crackpots (SBR and Lady Blount) 150 years ago are ipso-facto proof of the shap of the earth. Then on top of that insanity: Every scientist before and since who have made experiments that stand up to peer review and scrutiny are wrong or part of the conspiracy. All known physics that perfectly predict observed events inside their scope of description are false, and oh yeah all pictures showing the shape of the earth to be round are faked.

Its laughable. I think this place should be called the "flat earth thought experiment". Then at least people know what they are getting into and then maybe instead of the constant pedantic bickering there could be a sense of unity trying to come up with plausible ways the  earth could be functional as a flat disc.

But the earth is a flat disc.

This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else.

Any normal person would question the scientific validity of experiments & writings by some nut who published a leaflet entitled "The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures!!" which argued that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture" (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flat_Earth_Society)

Quote

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

Have you personally conducted one? If not, how do you know these people are not lying to you? What makes you think NASA, the government and countless scientists are lying to you, but Daniel Shenton and TB are telling the truth? Obviously they have an incentive to make up bogus results, just like you say NASA has an incentive to provide fake pictures. Do you have such a close personal relationship to them that you don't question anything they say? In that case it sounds more like a cult rather than a science-based community.

Or better yet, if the Bedford Level Experiments were proven to you personally to be false beyond any doubt and a new president of "The Flat Earth Society" did another experiment and it showed the earth was round (as unlikely as this may seem), would you change your mind and believe the earth is round? If yes, why on earth do you put so much trust in this organization? If no, the experiments are not really what makes you believe what you do, which makes you wonder what is. If you go back to "what it looks like", I point to my original post and rest my case.

Since nobody answered, here's what a flat earth believer might counter:

Your argument is beside the point. We argue that the earth is flat, not that it is imperative for an informed person to choose that belief over others. Why we believe what we do is not the issue here. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and does not need to explain why he chooses them, as long as he can provide evidence in their favor. We personally are convinced that the earth is flat, and we have provided evidence to support our claim. We are not stating that this belief is unavoidable in light of the available information, since a global conspiracy has made sure that it is not. Our argument is that the earth is flat, not that everyone in their right mind ought to think so. If you think otherwise, we respect that. Show us your evidence and we will evaluate it.

Here's what I would respond:

Any discussion is only of value if the argument at hand has any chance of being resolved. While everyone has the option to defend their opinion, whatever that opinion may be, there are only two means of spreading an idea: To gain the trust of people and manipulate them into changing their beliefs, and to provide authentic evidence which would lead a reasonable person to change their mind about the relevant issue. Assuming you reject the notion that manipulation is the only means by which flat earth belief can spread, you may either state that you have no intention of educating anyone outside your group about your ideas, or that a reasonable, intelligent person would accept your evidence as convincing enough to subscribe to your beliefs. In the former case your organization would obviously be pointless, while in the latter case you do have to argue what you refuse to argue, namely that your beliefs are not just true but reasonable to hold for impartial subjects in light of all considerations.

Responses?

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 09:25:05 AM

Quote

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

no need to call everybody angry noobs if they dont agree with bulls***. TB claims to have done extraordinary feats that is all

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 09:25:05 AM

Quote

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

no need to call everybody angry noobs if they dont agree with bulls***. TB claims to have done extraordinary feats that is all

I'm don't call people angry noobs because they are RE'ers. I call RE'ers 'RE'ers'. Angry noobs are noobs who are angry, and that describes you.

But the earth is a flat disc.

Nonsense, it's a triangular prism. Prove otherwise.

Quote from: Thork on October 08, 2011, 09:57:21 AM

But the earth is a flat disc.

Nonsense, it's a triangular prism. Prove otherwise.

Read Earth Not A Globe

Meh, you guys are no fun. I feel like I'm holding a speech in front of a bunch of pre-schoolers who forgot to take their Ritalin. Well, alright then, I'll leave you to your toys, fellas. So long.

Meh, you guys are no fun. I feel like I'm holding a speech in front of a bunch of pre-schoolers who forgot to take their Ritalin. Well, alright then, I'll leave you to your toys, fellas. So long.

Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Here, watch this and enjoy how flat earth is. Its a view from Everest (the best vantage point on earth at 30,000ft). So long. If you come back, come back with an OP that actually warrants debate. Then you may get one.

A view from Everest

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point.

I once fell off a chair whilst studying gravity. The blow to my head temporarily caused me to assume the earth was round. Luckily a quick glance out of my window confirmed that it was flat. I have since recovered fully.

Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

I once fell off a chair whilst studying gravity. The blow to my head temporarily caused me to assume the earth was round. Luckily a quick glance out of my window confirmed that it was flat. I have since recovered fully.

That's a wonderful story. Why don't you draw a few pictures and show them to us? That would be very nice.

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 09, 2011, 10:38:09 AM

Meh, you guys are no fun. I feel like I'm holding a speech in front of a bunch of pre-schoolers who forgot to take their Ritalin. Well, alright then, I'll leave you to your toys, fellas. So long.

Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Here, watch this and enjoy how flat earth is. Its a view from Everest (the best vantage point on earth at 30,000ft). So long. If you come back, come back with an OP that actually warrants debate. Then you may get one.

A view from Everest

If this was taken on everest, the highest point on earth, why are distant mountain peaks above the horizon?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 10:08:48 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 08, 2011, 09:57:21 AM

But the earth is a flat disc.

Nonsense, it's a triangular prism. Prove otherwise.

Read Earth Not A Globe

There's nothing in there that suggests it's not the top of a triangular prism. Where on earth do you get the idea it's a disc? Seen the edge, have you?

Quote

Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round but that is pretty meaningless, as any body that big would look flat up close.

I fixed that for you. You're welcome.

When are people gonna stop using the argument that it looks flat? Here's more proof that it doesn't look flat.



Hmmm, looks like the base of the clouds is at a lower level than the ocean, which is closer to us. Looks like we're looking over a big old downward curve, don't it?

I don't see any clouds below the horizon.

I don't see any clouds below the horizon.

clean your glasses

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 06:33:30 PM

I don't see any clouds below the horizon.

clean your glasses

You do see clouds below the horizon?

Quote from: alex00 on October 09, 2011, 06:38:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 06:33:30 PM

I don't see any clouds below the horizon.

clean your glasses

You do see clouds below the horizon?

yes