The Earth is Flat, Rory Cooper says so!

As the name Rory Cooper has been mentioned several times on these forums as a viable [sic] source of information in order to "prove" that the earth is flat, I thought it appropriate to post a link to a YouTube video that, to me, offers one of the most accessible sets of explanations totally debunking Cooper's nonsensical "theories".  It runs for around 30 minutes, but manages to unequivocally refute every one of Cooper's claims with clear diagrams and mathematical solutions to questions about the shape of the planet and horizon lines etc.

The Horizon Problem

"Here we’re going to take a look at the horizon problem, and the pathetic and juvenile excuses the Flat Earth community invoke in order to explain it away—and also their patent ineptitude at simple geometry and maths, and how simple concepts such as scale and curvature are beyond their collective ability to grasp.

Also explored is the propensity for the Flat Earth community to hilarious contradict itself at every turn, and the fact that the word "parallel" seems to be alien to them (either that, or they believe that the ground of this Flat Earth is both at the same altitude as wherever your eyes are AND under your feet at the same time).

We’ll also put to rest the Flat Earth claims surrounding the Bedford Level experiments, and reveal just how scientifically illiterate you have to be in order to believe there is experimental evidence suggesting the earth is flat."

As the name Rory Cooper has been mentioned several times on these forums as a viable [sic] source of information in order to "prove" that the earth is flat, I thought it appropriate to post a link to a YouTube video that, to me, offers one of the most accessible sets of explanations totally debunking Cooper's nonsensical "theories".  It runs for around 30 minutes, but manages to unequivocally refute every one of Cooper's claims with clear diagrams and mathematical solutions to questions about the shape of the planet and horizon lines etc.

The Horizon Problem

"Here we’re going to take a look at the horizon problem, and the pathetic and juvenile excuses the Flat Earth community invoke in order to explain it away—and also their patent ineptitude at simple geometry and maths, and how simple concepts such as scale and curvature are beyond their collective ability to grasp.

Also explored is the propensity for the Flat Earth community to hilarious contradict itself at every turn, and the fact that the word "parallel" seems to be alien to them (either that, or they believe that the ground of this Flat Earth is both at the same altitude as wherever your eyes are AND under your feet at the same time).

We’ll also put to rest the Flat Earth claims surrounding the Bedford Level experiments, and reveal just how scientifically illiterate you have to be in order to believe there is experimental evidence suggesting the earth is flat."

Cooper is a total halfwit. I used to argue with him. I realised it was a waste of time. Some people are too stupid to argue with. Mahrai's videos are superb and really funny as well.

This video reminded me of arguing with Cooper.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I am going to watch that video right now.

I watched the video and I love it!  Let's link as many flat earthers to this thread as possible.

That is quite horribly accurate.

What I particularly liked about it was that it was so simply and clearly explained.  Even his maths was set out logically and easy to follow.

And what's even more interesting—although to be expected—is that despite being viewed more than 140 times, no flat earther has been able to address the points raised, or refute any of them.  I'm guessing that's because it's virtually impossible to contradict anything in the video.

C'mon flat earthers... try and shoot it down.  If you can that is.   

No flat Earthers yet.  Why am I not supprised.

No flat Earthers yet.  Why am I not surprised.

I've noticed with any/all science-based topics that're strongly pro-round earth, and therefore difficult for the flat earthers to refute, that they'll invariably just ignore the thread and hope it gets lost in pages past.  Sad really.

   

I'll check out the video when I have some free time. I'm sure I'll be able to poke a few holes in it.

I'll check out the video when I have some free time. I'm sure I'll be able to poke a few holes in it.

So... just like most flat earthers, you've prejudged the evidence before you've even seen it?  You're "sure" you'll be able to refute some of it?

This closed mindset goes a long way to illustrating why most flat earthers are so resistant to the theories of contemporary science;  they seldom approach any given problem without a preconceived notion of what the answer should be—to their way of thinking.

With regard to flat earthers, this represents exactly what's meant by "confirmation bias" and/or selective thinking.

In the cognitive sciences, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to analytical errors.  It's a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the proposition under study; in this case the parameters of the horizon.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 22, 2015, 12:00:22 AM

I'll check out the video when I have some free time. I'm sure I'll be able to poke a few holes in it.

So... just like most flat earthers, you've prejudged the evidence before you've even seen it?  You're "sure" you'll be able to refute some of it?

This closed mindset goes a long way to illustrating why most flat earthers are so resistant to the theories of contemporary science;  they seldom approach any given problem without a preconceived notion of what the answer should be—to their way of thinking.

With regard to flat earthers, this represents exactly what's meant by "confirmation bias" and/or selective thinking.

In the cognitive sciences, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to analytical errors.  It's a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the proposition under study; in this case the parameters of the horizon.

We all know what "confirmation bias" means, Geoff. We don't need a breakdown everytime you think we don't understand your big words. Just assume that we do and leave it alone.

Regardless, this part made me laugh:

In the cognitive sciences, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to analytical errors..

Is this not exactly what RE'ers do?

The Earth looks flat, yet they insist it's round despite observational evidence of flatness.

Vauxhall, he said preconceptions, not perceptions.

Vauxhall, he said preconceptions, not perceptions.

Still applies. Actually, that's better.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 23, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Vauxhall, he said preconceptions, not perceptions.

Still applies. Actually, that's better.

Your preconceptions are just what you initially asume and they don't always reflect reality.

We all know what "confirmation bias" means, Geoff. We don't need a breakdown every time you think we don't understand your big words. Just assume that we do and leave it alone.

You may well understand the term "confirmation bias" Vauxhall, but I explain it simply because so many of your flat earth peers have problems understanding even the basics of fallacious logic and rational debate.  And I'm sorry that you apparently think "confirmation" is a BIG word.  This may also help explain why so many flat earthers have a lot of difficulty understanding simple facts LOL.  I'll try and keep 'em down to three syllables from now on.

In the cognitive sciences, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to analytical errors.

Is this not exactly what RE'ers do?
The Earth looks flat, yet they insist it's round despite observational evidence of flatness.

Nope.  You need to check out the difference between "assumption" and "presumption".  Flat earthers assume;  round earthers presume.  Tiny but critical difference.

I've been reading some of Cooper's comments he has made to people responding to his videos. It's like reading the ramblings of retard. He can barely string a sentence together. He's completely incoherent and inarticulate. He seems to think that you can only see things reflected in a mirror that are directly in front of the mirror even if you look at the mirror from the side. It's bordering on insanity. I think that's what he believes although it's hard to pick out any meaning from the garbled nonsense he spouts.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 23, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Vauxhall, he said preconceptions, not perceptions.

Still applies. Actually, that's better.

LOL... it is.  For the round earth case.  Sorry.  You obviously don't understand that a preconception is nothing more than one's personal idea or notion—both unfounded—of something, whilst one's perception requires the actuality of discovering, observing, distinguishing or understanding something based on various types of evidential phenomenon.  This in part explains why flat earthers can't even agree on a map or a model of their purported flat earth—they all have different preconceptions.  And why round earthers agree unequivocally on the spherical earth map and model—they all perceive the earth identically, both independently and collectively.

Flat earthers have a preconception that the earth is flat—they have no viable evidence supporting that preconception.  Round earthers have a perception that the earth is spherical from actual observation of its idiosyncratic features, and confirmation that those features are in accord with every one of the spherical earth theories.