Everyone can look out their windows and observe a flat earth.
did you read the FAQ?
its a trick of the light. you really should search more.did you read the FAQ?
Of course I did. But this argument is presented by itself in many topics as if it were the end to all arguments, usually by Tom Bishop or narcberry, sometimes by others.
My observation is that FE'rs believe this to really settle something and it's flawed logic. It shouldn't even be part of the equation.
its a trick of the light. you really should search more.
it doesnt appear flat - it is flat.its a trick of the light. you really should search more.
What are you talking about? I'm not asking for someone to explain how the earth could appear flat. I'm pointing out flawed logic in the form of one of their most common arguments. The post is about the form of the argument, not the content. (and i've read about the content of the argument plenty, including the bendy light EA stuff).
it doesnt appear flat - it is flat.
i gave you a reason. its a trick of the light. read a thread about light bending.so when I look out my window if looks flat so the earth must be flat but then light gets bent up so when I look out my window and it looks round but that is only because light gets bent up to make it appear look like that because the earth is flat?
the earth is flat.
youve been searching. :)i gave you a reason. its a trick of the light. read a thread about light bending.so when I look out my window if looks flat so the earth must be flat but then light gets bent up so when I look out my window and it looks round but that is only because light gets bent up to make it appear look like that because the earth is flat?
the earth is flat.
i gave you a reason. its a trick of the light. read a thread about light bending.
the earth is flat.
Proofi gave you a reason. its a trick of the light. read a thread about light bending.
the earth is flat.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand my original post.
Does that apply to cubes?the earth is not a cube, so that argument is invalid.
Proofi gave you a reason. its a trick of the light. read a thread about light bending.
the earth is flat.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand my original post.
1. A small piece of ground can be perfectly flat.
2. The earth consists of billions of these flat surfaces.
3. The sum of billions of flat surfaces is a giant flat surface.
4. The earth is flat.
Oh... so the Earth isn't actually flat, just locally flat?flat from one ice wall to the other.
It could be a cube?
What is the shape of the entire Earth?
Proof
1. A small piece of ground can be perfectly flat.
2. The earth consists of billions of these flat surfaces.
3. The sum of billions of flat surfaces is a giant flat surface.
4. The earth is flat.
we are only talking about the top part - the part where the land and water is.
that part - the visible part - is flat. like the earth. what part of that are you having trouble with?
why oh why would i be worried about all those other surfaces? we dont live on those surfaces, silly.
So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
I say this argument by itself is completely invalid since there is no logical reason to jump from seeing a few miles to concluding the rest of the earth is the same.How about this. I look out the window at the lighthouse at Byron Bay the Easterly most point of Australia. I have a full 180 degree field of vision that is all ocean. Now if I can see directly east to the horizon, where ships apparently disappear due to the curvature of the earth, then I should be able to see the earth curve away to the north and the south.
So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
But what about all of the lumpy parts? And all of the hilly parts? And all of the mountainy parts? Are they all flat too? What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?
they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
But what about all of the lumpy parts? And all of the hilly parts? And all of the mountainy parts? Are they all flat too? What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?
where is your proof?they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
But what about all of the lumpy parts? And all of the hilly parts? And all of the mountainy parts? Are they all flat too? What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?
No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.
where is your proof?they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
But what about all of the lumpy parts? And all of the hilly parts? And all of the mountainy parts? Are they all flat too? What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?
No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.
wow, it l00kz flat too me lulz!!.where is your proof?they themselves are not flat - but the ground they sit on is, because - the earth is flat.So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
But what about all of the lumpy parts? And all of the hilly parts? And all of the mountainy parts? Are they all flat too? What about the river valley that I live in, is that a part flat?
No, it isn't. Us RErs know you guys are stupid and know the Earth is actually round.
(http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/media/earth.jpg)
And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.
(http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/media/earth.jpg)
And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.
(http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/media/earth.jpg)
And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.
Looks pretty flat to me.
your flat earth is missing the ice wall.(http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/media/earth.jpg)
And don't go "it l00kz flat too me lolz!!" because it isn't.
Looks pretty flat to me.
...and that, my fellow RErs, is why FErs fail.
There is no ice wall, because the Earth is round. ;)
There is no ice wall, because the Earth is round. ;)
But how is that possible, when the earth is flat?
Remember, RET=Retarded Earth Theory, and FET=Fantastic Earth Theory.
Remember, RET=Retarded Earth Theory, and FET=Fantastic Earth Theory.
Fix'd.
You're still saying th Earth is round that way.
Another victory for RE!!
You're still saying th Earth is round that way.
th earth? whats that?QuoteAnother victory for RE!!
You still have some way to go until you "get" this site.
You don't understand typos yet? I find that sad.
There is nothing to get, besides undertstading that most people here are retards
You don't understand typos yet? I find that sad.
::)QuoteThere is nothing to get, besides undertstanding that most people here are retards
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t280/bluethen2/round.jpg)Look at this picture. Does this look flat (theoretically)? Of course not! Does it look round? Yes, but it isn't. This 3d model consists of several flat surfaces all angled to make it look round. Don't believe me? Ask any 3d modeler!
Now, I'm seeing people here saying "The Earth is round! Look: RET = Real Earth Theory, FET = Fake Earth Theory", and even more of "Look outside your window, the ground is flat! see?!"
Look, just because you can take any one small part of Earth and call it flat, does not mean the rest of the Earth is flat. Infact, when I look outside my window, there are various hills and stuff. They're not flat, unless you were to cut out the side of one of those hills. My point being, is that the Earth is too big to come up with any conclusions on its shape just by looking out your window. It's like saying that air doesn't exists because you don't see it.
Things aren't exactly as you precieve. FE'ers merely looked out their window, saw a flat patch of ground, and suddenly assumed earth was flat, and made up a bunch of crap to make it seem a little more true.
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t280/bluethen2/round.jpg)
I said theoretically. Meaning, regardless of the flat screen, it should look round.(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t280/bluethen2/round.jpg)
Looks pretty flat to me.
Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead
Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead
So then it could look like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uniform_polyhedron-43-h01.png)
No. If you add to the proof that any piece of ground is perfectly flat, then the piece of ground consisting of adjacent halves of two other pieces of ground is also perfectly flat, and therefore they must be parallel as well as flat.
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck - is it a goose? no silly, its a duck. if its flat when i look out my window, and if i drop a ball and it doesnt roll, guess what - earth is flat.Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead
The only reason the thread is dead is because it went way off topic. I asked for an analysis of the inductive reasoning in the argument. It is the same argument as this:
I see one black crow.
I see two black crows.
I see three black crows.
Therefore all crows are black.
That's an invalid argument. Faulty use of induction. Failure at universal instantiation.
No one has made a case for it being valid logic.
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck - is it a goose? no silly, its a duck. if its flat when i look out my window, and if i drop a ball and it doesnt roll, guess what - earth is flat.Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead
The only reason the thread is dead is because it went way off topic. I asked for an analysis of the inductive reasoning in the argument. It is the same argument as this:
I see one black crow.
I see two black crows.
I see three black crows.
Therefore all crows are black.
That's an invalid argument. Faulty use of induction. Failure at universal instantiation.
No one has made a case for it being valid logic.
another win for FE!
i can see the important part of it - the flat part.if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck - is it a goose? no silly, its a duck. if its flat when i look out my window, and if i drop a ball and it doesnt roll, guess what - earth is flat.Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead
The only reason the thread is dead is because it went way off topic. I asked for an analysis of the inductive reasoning in the argument. It is the same argument as this:
I see one black crow.
I see two black crows.
I see three black crows.
Therefore all crows are black.
That's an invalid argument. Faulty use of induction. Failure at universal instantiation.
No one has made a case for it being valid logic.
another win for FE!
Certainly not a win for FE. A miserable failure from your corner. Either you have no understanding of logic or you are likewise just being silly.
BTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
BTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
QuoteBTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.
In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
i can see the important part of it - the flat part.if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck - is it a goose? no silly, its a duck. if its flat when i look out my window, and if i drop a ball and it doesnt roll, guess what - earth is flat.Typical responses from FEs are to state their beliefs and ignore the presented evidence. This thread is dead
The only reason the thread is dead is because it went way off topic. I asked for an analysis of the inductive reasoning in the argument. It is the same argument as this:
I see one black crow.
I see two black crows.
I see three black crows.
Therefore all crows are black.
That's an invalid argument. Faulty use of induction. Failure at universal instantiation.
No one has made a case for it being valid logic.
another win for FE!
Certainly not a win for FE. A miserable failure from your corner. Either you have no understanding of logic or you are likewise just being silly.
BTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
another win for FE!
QuoteIn a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
QuoteIn a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
I say this argument by itself is completely invalid since there is no logical reason to jump from seeing a few miles to concluding the rest of the earth is the same.I look out the window at the lighthouse at Byron Bay the Easterly most point of Australia. I have a full 180 degree field of vision that is all ocean. Now if I can see directly east to the horizon, where ships apparently disappear due to the curvature of the earth, then I should be able to see the earth curve away to the north and the south.
But I do not. Does this not demonstrate that the earth is flat?
QuoteIn a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'd just like to point out that "proof by example" is a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
An appeal to an authority is also a logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
Refer to point 2) above re: space agencies.
Ahh the sea of e-contrition, how I have missed thee.
OK people, here's how it works (once again, this time with feeling):
1) This site is for debate
2) One of the axioms of this debate is that there is a conspiracy preventing use of space-agency evidence as valid
3) The FE model is one of many conceivable geometries for the Earth - to say that any one is more valid than another requires logical debate supported by evidence
4) Lurk moar
5) Don't trust Tom Bishop, he's part of the conspiracy
Saying FE is an invalid theory based on a hole in inductive reasoning is completely pointless - it proves nothing other than you may need another reason for thinking the Earth may be flat, of which there are an infinite number. Stop trying to circumvent the debate and if you're a really dedicated RE'er then grow a spine, get your logic cap on and bloody well prove it.
And if we knock down one FET argument after another because it is not a valid argument, then FET becomes a weaker theory.
I didn't say the theory was invalid; I said that particular argument was invalid. I'm perfectly aware that there are other arguments. You seem to think debate doesn't require the use of logic. If you can't use logic correctly, then there is no way to debate. Period. And if we can't debate the use of logic by FE and RE, then how can you ever determine who wins the arguments?
And if we knock down one FET argument after another because it is not a valid argument, then FET becomes a weaker theory.
And don't tell me to put on my logic cap. That's what this thread is about. I understand logic. Very few of the FE defenders seem to, however. I also understand debate. Debates can be won by supporting your own position, undermining your opponents position, or a combination of both.
If you can't defend an argument, then abandon it or improve it. That's the point of this thread, which I think is in line with the point of this site.
I would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth. Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth isflatround (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.
You missed the point that orbital space flight is impossibleI would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth. Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth isflatround (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.
Fixed that for you. Very good point by the way. Still it would be nice to at least settle the conspiracy issue I raised above, before we accept it as a premise for the discussion.
You missed the point that orbital space flight is impossibleI would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth. Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth isflatround (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.
Fixed that for you. Very good point by the way. Still it would be nice to at least settle the conspiracy issue I raised above, before we accept it as a premise for the discussion.
LOL... yes a minor typo on my part. I also would like to know what orbital space flight being impossible has to do with either my post or maddog's reply...Well since orbital space flight is not possible, it is not possible to have orbital photography, therefore this must prove the earth to be flat.
I believe that was my point for why, when debating FET, you must assume that space agency-based evidence is inadmissible...I thought it was that any evidence is inadmissable?
I thought it was that any evidence is inadmissable?...???
QuoteBTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.
i can see the important part of it - the flat part.Did you people completely ignore my post?
another win for FE!
The Earth is FAR too large for you to make any conclusion about its shape just by looking outside your window.
A duck and a planet is way too different to be compared in such a way.The Earth is FAR too large for you to make any conclusion about its shape just by looking outside your window.
Why assume what you think is a duck as any less complex?
A duck and a planet is way too different to be compared in such a way.
You can see the duck as a whole.A duck and a planet is way too different to be compared in such a way.
But you're claiming the size of the Earth is too large to make a conclusion. How do you know a variable with the duck doesn't make a conclusion any harder?
You can see the duck as a whole.
I'm telling you that it's not as you precieve it.
How would you think the earth would look any different from your window if it were round?
You can see various features that'd greatly define the duck. However, the portion of Earth you are seeing outside you window is way too small to make any conclusion.You can see the duck as a whole.
So just because you can see all of something means you can make whatever conclusions you want?
You're precieving it as flat.I'm telling you that it's not as you precieve it.
How do I perceive it?
Then you and the FE'rs should stop calling earth flat because the small portion of it you're standing on is flat. Use real evidence!How would you think the earth would look any different from your window if it were round?
We can't discern anything off sight alone.
You're precieving it as flat.
Then you and the FE'rs should stop calling earth flat because the small portion of it you're standing on is flat. Use real evidence!
Well, we're on the same side here now. Aren't we?You're precieving it as flat.
When did I say that?Then you and the FE'rs should stop calling earth flat because the small portion of it you're standing on is flat. Use real evidence!
I never called the Earth flat; and I'm not an FEer.
Well, we're on the same side here now. Aren't we?
Oh, I see.Well, we're on the same side here now. Aren't we?
I don't think so. I don't profess to know the shape of the Earth.
You're wasting your time, divito - suddenly as soon as you say the magical words "I'm not an FE'er" somehow that means you are a real person. Apparently people who don't just leap to the obvious conclusion and who might actually be interested in debating why ELSE they think the Earth might be round/flat/whatever don't have a leg to stand on.
"Oh well it's stupid to say it's flat based on what we can see" means that the Earth must be spherical. Obviously.
A logical debate is not one that should be conducted with the aim of one side 'winning' so much as all those debating get a little closer to the truth by agreeing on the best solution to the given arguments. True, if someone holds very entrenched beliefs it may be impossible to move them from their position, in which case you have to hope that everyone else who joins in/reads the debate will form their own opinion and not be drawn into school playground-style 'picking sides'. You have to go in with an open mind, and being dead set on 'winning' is certainly not going to help your objectivity.
I would say the point of this site is to debate the idea of a flat Earth. Given that space agencies have provided convincing evidence that the Earth is flat (via orbital photography etc), the one assumption you have to make to discuss a flat Earth is that such evidence is fake. If you are not willing to work within that assumption then there is no point in discussing the FET.
I understand your position, but do you think people should form their opinions on, or be swayed by, faulty logical arguments?
Maybe you have a different idea of what logic is. Logic is not the same as debate. A debate may only sway opinions, and some tactics in debate may be considered fair or unfair, but logic, at least as I've studied it, is rather formal and requires proper use of logical rules. A logical argument can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. It has to be both sound and valid to be useful. Otherwise it's nothing but a deception.
Are you saying this site is only for arguing and the logic used can't be called into question? If so, then that's not very interesting.
I have a BS degree in Math and Philosophy with an emphasis in logical theory. I'll be glad to debate the evidence and find new ways to defend either theory, but if I can't call you on a bad argument, then all that remains is unsubstantiated assertions and finger pointing. And there's no shortage of that here already.
QuoteBTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.
so what you just deduced makes you smarter than "some stupid FE'r"?QuoteBTW, you can see the whole duck.
Can you see the whole earth?
When I look out my window I see everything which suggests a Flat Earth and nothing which suggests a round one.
Saying that the earth looks flat from where youre standing doesnt make the entire thing flat. using the same logic:
Where I am, birds fly south for the winter because its warmer there. I used to live in Britain, and the birds there would also fly south for the winter, because its warmer there. Therefore, its always warmer in the south.
That is obviously poor logic because to come to the conclusion you cant just use the example of a few places, you have to go everywhere on earth and survey it all, then make a model for it all, showing that no matter where you are, its warmer in the south, or the earth is flat or whatever.
I bet some stupid FE'r who doesn't understand logic and reasoning will respond to this "but Nobody has the resources to do all that, so your argument has no evidence. another victory for FE!"
LOL... yes a minor typo on my part. I also would like to know what orbital space flight being impossible has to do with either my post or maddog's reply...Well since orbital space flight is not possible with my impossible Flat Earth Theory, it is not possible to have orbital photography, therefore this must prove the earth to be flat.
LOL... yes a minor typo on my part. I also would like to know what orbital space flight being impossible has to do with either my post or maddog's reply...Well since orbital space flight is not possible with my impossible Flat Earth Theory, it is not possible to have orbital photography, therefore this must prove the earth to be flat.
LOL... yes a minor typo on my part. I also would like to know what orbital space flight being impossible has to do with either my post or maddog's reply...Well since orbital space flight is not possible with my impossible Flat Earth Theory, it is not possible to have orbital photography, therefore this must prove the earth to be flat.
...was there a point to that post?
No, and I've banned that person. Their only other post was pointless spam, too.