As I have said science and mathematics always change and viewpoints always change.
Yes, they do, but not without reason. In fact, science and mathematics have a lot of inertia -- they are quite resistant to change. Changing the common scientific viewpoint requires providing falsifying evidence for a theory. The evidence has to be confirmed by other scientists who attempt to reproduce the results of the experiment for themselves.
Suppose I want to introduce a new idea or refute an old one. I've got to remember that the burden is on my shoulders to convince a large body of people, most of whose careers have been based on the ideas I'm fighting against. If my work convinces them, it really says a lot -- that my work has been reviewed by my peers before it was ever published; that my audience has scrutinized it personally; that they have given it to their colleagues to scrutinze as well; and that they and there colleagues have either reproduced my results themselves or have seen very simply how they might be reproduced. It's no small task to change science.
Mathematics is even harder, since most of the work done in this field is quite formal and is not subject to questions about hidden factors and experimental design. It's usually impossible to refute old theories; a proof is a proof. (Of course, this doesn't apply to new theories.)
Scientists do make a few assumptions. First, they will usually believe what they have observed first-hand. Secondly, they usually assume that published ideas and findings are not intentional lies -- but they will certainly assume that publications will be prone to errors. The reason for all this is that they realize the limitations of the scientific method and of themselves as human beings. In the former case, they know that no amount of examples constitutes a proof, but that one counterexample constitutes a refutation (that's why science is based not on providing explanations -- as flat-Earthers do -- but falsifications). They also know that their interpretations are biased and fallible. However, they still want to do something which resembles searching for truth, in such a way as to come to conclusions that are acceptable to the group, to the degree that so far the group agrees that a refutation of the conclusions is unlikely.
So yes, science and mathematics change -- but that is a strength, not a weakness.
From the very basic principle of the earth appearing flat by viewing it.
To reiterate a point I've made earlier, I live in a mountainous area. There is nowhere I can look from my apartment that hints to me that the world might be flat. To me, it looks spiky and irregular. I'm not saying this is evidence that it's round; I'm just saying that while you may have some readily-available, easy-to-understand phenomenon that leads you to believe the Earth is flat, I am not burdened by this bias.
You guys always point to pictures from space
This is only a problem if you *begin* with the assumption that people are lying. I begin with the assumption that while their claims may be false, they probably believe them to be true.
and to evidence that is to complex for the average man to understand.
Ships going over the horizon is very simple and very compelling. I haven't seen any coherent flat-Earth refutation of this evidence that's simple enough "for the average man to understand". They always depend on the ad-hoc postulation of mechanisms you yourselves admit knowing little to nothing about (e.g. atmospheric effects). You're applying a very damning double standard to "round Earth science" and "flat Earth science" -- stop it.
-Erasmus