Bathroom break at 800Km/Hr

So it looks like... every shape?

I would say more it doesn't look like any shape as there isn't enough information (from that observation anyone).

The horizon doesn't look like a straight line to you?

No, it looks far more like a circle as it goes all around me.

I understand that you are saying it could be a straight line, or it could be a small section of any other shape, but the same could be said of anything. I could look at you and say "Well, that doesn't look like a human. It could be a human but it could also be a part of a much larger beast that extends underneath his shoes into the ground like roots, therefore it doesn't look like a human."

i.e. you could go to completely insane lengths, ignoring common experience with other humans and ignoring me walking?

Do you agree that any sector of a sufficiently large circle looks like a straight line?

An isolated sector, yes; but with it just going too far out of view, NO!
A sector of a circle is different to a circle.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 07, 2018, 02:21:23 AM

Do you agree that any sector of a sufficiently large circle looks like a straight line?

An isolated sector, yes; but with it just going too far out of view, NO!
A sector of a circle is different to a circle.

What does this look like to you? (the image ends where the lines end)

It's dishonest to say it doesn't look flat. It looks flat, but said flatness might be a result of any larger shape.

It doesn't look flat. The near and distinct horizon at sea is indicative of some curvature, at least.

Perhaps that is the argument you were presented with. Normally, what I tend to hear is somewhere along these lines;
-the Earth looks flat
-the two options are it is flat, or it is round
-if it is flat, I have to assume what I'm seeing is accurate
-if it is round, I have to accept what I'm seeing and assume that other evidence (disconnected from this observation) proves the Earth is round
-the first hypothesis requires fewer assumptions, therefore Occam's Razor dictates that the Earth appearing flat is evidence the Earth is flat

Now, you may say that the first requires more assumptions, because you have to assume that the other evidence is false. However, the evaluation is simply whether the Earth appearing flat is evidence of the Earth being flat or not, that a hypothetical person with no knowledge but perfect reasoning capability is presented with only the fact that the Earth looks flat would reason that the Earth is flat. It only isn't evidence of that after taking into account other evidence, therefore Occam's Razor suggests it is evidence of the Earth being flat.

That logic makes sense to me. I don't know if I'm explaining it well, but that's how I've heard it.

First of all, Occam's Razor dictates nothing.  It is a generality that is helpful in choosing between otherwise equal hypothetical situations. 

Second, the way you frame the argument is an incorrect rationalization.  We all agree the Earth appears generally flat at ground level.  We all agree that this perception is what we would expect if the Earth were flat.  Most everyone agrees that this perception is also what we would expect if the Earth were a very large sphere. 

Earth appears flat = Flat Earth or Earth appears flat = Large Sphere Earth is the issue then, regardless of how you dress it up.

Rational people examine both statements and realize that there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion, and given only the statement "Earth appears flat" it could be either flat or a large sphere.

Irrational people decide that, though their single observation yields both results, the Earth is flat. 

You claim there are more assumptions being made in the spherical Earth model because you have to assume other evidence is available.  That's not an assumption because there is, in fact, heaps of other evidence available.  Given only the appearance at ground level, the spherical Earth model makes no assumptions, and concludes that more information is necessary.  The flat Earth model makes the only assumption, and concludes that the Earth is flat for no logical reason.

What does this look like to you? (the image ends where the lines end)

This, taken as the entirety the object, appears flat.

This is not the case with Earth.
This is because with Earth you aren't seeing the entire image. You are only seeing a small portion of it.

That makes a very significant difference.

Furthermore, with Earth the reason you can't see the whole thing is not because it gets too small or because the atmosphere gets in the way but because the Earth itself gets in the way. That means it doesn't look flat.

And of course there is an even bigger issue than that.

Does this look flat:


No. It's all bumpy.
The best case scenario is out on the ocean, where it is still at least partly wavy.
(Or a salt flat, which can still be quite bumpy)

So no, IT DOES NOT LOOK FLAT!
To some superficial observations it appears to be consistent with a very large almost flat object.

We all agree the Earth appears generally flat at ground level.

Apparently JackBlack doesn't. And again, I'm not trying to say that to draw a conclusion from that evidence alone is justified. But what I am saying is that it isn't a 'silly' argument to make if you also have other arguments from which you have drawn your conclusion. Saying the Earth looks like a tiny part of a sphere, therefore it is a sphere, is equally ridiculous, but as an argument supported by other arguments from which the final conclusion has been drawn, it's quite rational. I'm sure we agree on this.

If your final conclusion has not solely been drawn from the Earth appearing flat, using the Earth's flat appearance as an argument is a rational argument to make.

I can prove this, because whenever the Earth's apparent flatness is brought up, REers will provide the argument; "It also looks like a small section of a sphere."

That is a rational argument they are making. Just like an FEer providing the argument; "It also looks flat."

To some superficial observations it appears to be consistent with a very large almost flat object.

Okay, I'm glad we agree.

And again, I'm not trying to say that to draw a conclusion from that evidence alone is justified. But what I am saying is that it isn't a 'silly' argument to make if you also have other arguments from which you have drawn your conclusion.

It is a silly argument to make, regardless of what other evidence/arguments you have.
It clearly isn't flat on the small scale.
It only appears consistent with a flat or round surface on a large scale which you cannot observe from ground level (due to it not being flat).

A tiny section of Earth being consistent with Earth being round or flat offers no support either way.

Saying the Earth looks like a tiny part of a sphere, therefore it is a sphere, is equally ridiculous

Good thing no one is.
Also, it is a tiny part of Earth which looks like a tiny part of a rough sphere.

I can prove this, because whenever the Earth's apparent flatness is brought up, REers will provide the argument; "It also looks like a small section of a sphere."

That is a rational argument they are making. Just like an FEer providing the argument; "It also looks flat."

The difference is that it is a response.
The FEer claims Earth looks flat therefore it is flat.
The REer explains that it looks consistent with a flat or round Earth, thus it does not indicate it is flat.

The REer isn't using this as evidence of Earth being round. They are using it to show the FEer argument is flawed.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 07, 2018, 06:31:28 PM

I can prove this, because whenever the Earth's apparent flatness is brought up, REers will provide the argument; "It also looks like a small section of a sphere."

That is a rational argument they are making. Just like an FEer providing the argument; "It also looks flat."

The difference is that it is a response.
The FEer claims Earth looks flat therefore it is flat.
The REer explains that it looks consistent with a flat or round Earth, thus it does not indicate it is flat.

The REer isn't using this as evidence of Earth being round. They are using it to show the FEer argument is flawed.

I'm glad you agree that as a response, it is a rational argument.

I'm glad you agree that as a response, it is a rational argument.

Yes, when done to say you cannot conclude anything from Earth being consistent with a rough flat or round surface.
Not when used like the FEers often do along the lines of:
"Earth looks flat so it is flat".

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 07, 2018, 07:55:11 PM

I'm glad you agree that as a response, it is a rational argument.

Yes, when done to say you cannot conclude anything from Earth being consistent with a rough flat or round surface.
Not when used like the FEers often do along the lines of:
"Earth looks flat so it is flat".

Agreed.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 07, 2018, 05:33:46 AM

We all agree the Earth appears generally flat at ground level.

Apparently JackBlack doesn't.

You quoted him at the end of your post agreeing with that statement...

And again, I'm not trying to say that to draw a conclusion from that evidence alone is justified. But what I am saying is that it isn't a 'silly' argument to make if you also have other arguments from which you have drawn your conclusion.

But there is no other evidence of a flat Earth.  That's all there is.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone try to shut a thread down with some iteration of "Look out the window.  It looks flat."

Saying the Earth looks like a tiny part of a sphere, therefore it is a sphere, is equally ridiculous, but as an argument supported by other arguments from which the final conclusion has been drawn, it's quite rational. I'm sure we agree on this.

Sure, but no one makes that argument.  People say that "looking flat" is also consistent with what we would expect from a sphere, therefore it is not necessarily flat.  Do you understand the difference?  It's used to refute a faulty conclusion not to make a conclusion in either direction.

If your final conclusion has not solely been drawn from the Earth appearing flat, using the Earth's flat appearance as an argument is a rational argument to make.

I can prove this, because whenever the Earth's apparent flatness is brought up, REers will provide the argument; "It also looks like a small section of a sphere."

That is a rational argument they are making. Just like an FEer providing the argument; "It also looks flat."

The response in this case isn't an argument because there is no conclusion.  The response is refuting an argument that has an incorrect conclusion.  If you were to make the argument "everything in the sky is a bird", based on the premise that you saw a bird in the sky, I would point out that airplanes are also in the sky.  I'm demonstrating that your conclusion is flawed, but I'm not making an argument of any kind.  My statement has no conclusion, just like the statement "the local appearance of flatness also looks like part of a huge sphere."  All of the actual evidence for a spherical Earth is what forms the correct conclusion. 

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 07, 2018, 06:38:09 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 07, 2018, 05:33:46 AM

We all agree the Earth appears generally flat at ground level.

Apparently JackBlack doesn't.

You quoted him at the end of your post agreeing with that statement...

Yeah he posted after I wrote that. I put the horizontal rule in, debated editing my response to rabinoz, but decided against it.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone try to shut a thread down with some iteration of "Look out the window.  It looks flat."

And in that context, it's a silly argument. If that's how you've seen it used, yeah that's silly. That's not the way it's been presented to me, but yes.

And in that context, it's a silly argument. If that's how you've seen it used, yeah that's silly. That's not the way it's been presented to me, but yes.

In almost any context it is just as silly.
When used as an argument to support a FE it is silly.
When used as an argument to say you can't tell the difference with that observation it is not.