Bulverism

All this Flat Earth theory entails a terrible logical fallacy. It's all plain bulverism, and that's all. You say that Round Earthers believe (which doesn't really go here, because it's actually a fact) that the Earth is round. However, you argue that we believe this just because we are told so, which means that the governments is saying the Earth is flat. However, you argue, the governments say this because it's a conspiracy. Therefore, the Earth is flat. That's downright bulverism, alright:

1.The governments say, A implies B.
2.But they say so because C happens (no proof for this, but I'm going to ignore it).
3.Therefore, A does not imply C, and implies D (just because I can't think of E, F, and G, and we have yet another fallacy, argument from ignorance).

A= numerous experiments conducted by what ranges from prominent scientists to everyday observation.
B= that the Earth is round.
C= a massive conspiracy, and making up experiments, as well as retouching photos.
D= that the Earth is flat.
E, F, and G = other shapes.

Complicated but true.

I almost didn't get that, but then I saw there were definitions for A, B, C, and D.  And different way to look at the theory though. 

This thread is an example of Bulverism, surely?

This thread is an example of Bulverism, surely?

Yes it is.

Def: i. X says, "A implies B".
      ii. But X wants C to happen for unrelated reason Y.
     iii. Ergo, B is false, so D is true.

Example:
"But, surely Random Politician, your opponent, Another Random Politician, claims that lack of education can eventually lead to recession."
"Of course he would say that, he comes from an undereducated and simultaneously poor family."

RP did not refute ARP's argument, he just gave possible reasons which could cause ARP to give that specific argument, which RP considered ad hoc to be false. Maybe he is poor, but that hasd nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

A= numerous experiments conducted by what ranges from prominent scientists to everyday observation.

Before the age of space exploration every single society since the history of time believed in a Round Earth. The people of kitty hawk believed it. Columbus believed it. Magellan believed it. The people of the Middle Ages believed it. The Greeks and the Babylonians believed it. No society ever believed the world was flat. No person has ever set out to prove the earth as round. Simply put, they already dogmatically believed it.

Historian Christine Garwood just recently published a book on the subject. She found that no society or civilization throughout the annals of time has ever, except for the FES in the late 19th century, has once amused the idea of a Flat Earth.


Does this brainwashing sound familiar?

The "Round Earth" is the primitive shape of the world, not the Flat Earth.

B= that the Earth is round.

Please prove it for us.

C= a massive conspiracy, and making up experiments, as well as retouching photos.

I've shown the inconsistency of NASA photos many dozens of times on this forum. One of the Conspiracy's subcontractors even sells the 3D model they use on the internet for profit.

Look familiar?

D= that the Earth is flat.

Direct proof can be had by looking out your window.

Additionally, I can quote you hundreds of experiments and observations over the last 150 years of the Flat Earth Literature which has proved its flatness. I have never seen one quoted terrestrial experiment from any Round Earther which has proved its roundity. I've also poised several observations which Round Earthers have never been able to explain.

The purpose of this thread was to show a logical fallacy in the FE theory. But anyway:

Before the age of space exploration every single society since the history of time believed in a Round Earth. The people of kitty hawk believed it. Columbus believed it. Magellan believed it. The people of the Middle Ages believed it. The Greeks and the Babylonians believed it. No society ever believed the world was flat. No person has ever set out to prove the earth as round. Historian Christine Garwood just recently published a book on the subject. She found that no society or civilization throughout the annals of time has ever, except for the FES in the late 19th century, once amused the idea of a Flat Earth.


This doesn't prove anything. So, we have to tend towards agnosticism.

C= a massive conspiracy, and making up experiments, as well as retouching photos.

I've shown the inconsistency of NASA photos many dozens of times on this forum. One of the Conspiracy's subcontractors even sells the 3D model they use on the internet for profit.

What conspiracy? Watch out for bulverism; you haven't refuted any argument about the Earth's roundness. You just assume there's one big conspiracy out there.

I can quote you hundreds of experiments and observations over the last 150 years of the Flat Earth Literature which has proved its flatness. I have never seen one quoted experiment from any Round Earther which has proved its roundity.

Its flatness has never been proved. Wild speculating and "read the FAQ" is not proof and, as for the other "experiments", see below:

B= that the Earth is round.

Please prove it for us.

It's quite simple, really. Go to the docks. Wait for a ship to start its journey towards the horizon. You will not see it fade out gradually, you will see it gradually descend. That's the end.

This doesn't prove anything. So, we have to tend towards agnosticism.

I'm an athiest. The shape of the earth has nothing to do with religion. Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

In fact, scripture even described the world as an "orb."

What conspiracy? Watch out for bulverism; you haven't refuted any argument about the Earth's roundness. You just assume there's one big conspiracy out there.

NASA and the Federal Reserve are in cahoots. Many of its prominent organizers were the same people. Please watch this video from start to end on the subject of the Federal Reserve scam: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism

It's a long video, but if you grow insistent, skip to the 57 minute mark.

It's quite simple, really. Go to the docks. Wait for a ship to start its journey towards the horizon. You will not see it fade out gradually, you will see it gradually descend. That's the end

The sinking ship effect you are witnessing is a natural law of perspective. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham found that the vanishing point of the horizon is slightly below the edge of the horizon due the mean combined height of the waves. Although the waves might reach a maximum of 44 inches in height above the true edge of the horizon, it has a profound effect.

This means that as the ship shrinks into the horizon it must also sink into mean height of the combined waves. The smaller the ship gets into the distance, the more the waves at the false edge of the horizon will obscure its hull.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Therefore, with the effect satisfactorily explained in full, the Earth remains flat.

Now you've got it completely wrong. The distance between the shore and the horizon is at maximum 5 kilometers. The ship cannot look to tiny so that is covered from the waves, and, as far as I know, waves go up and down, and I know I'm seeing the ship descending, not vanishing and suddenly appearing again. Also, there are other proofs:

*If you measure the angle of the light hitting the ground in one place, travel west or east, and measure it again, it will be slightly different.

*Consider Occam's Razor. Not a proof, but gives you a clue. You multiply entities, in which case is not necessary

Lastly, a question: If the Earth looks like Flat Earthers depict it on maps, does this mean that planes do not follow a straight line when travelling from, say, USA to China? Or do they follow a straight line, which is plainly not true, because one can sometimes see the ground below him, and does not see ice?

Quote from: Captain Moustachio on April 22, 2007, 11:34:08 AM

This thread is an example of Bulverism, surely?

Yes it is.

Def: i. X says, "A implies B".
      ii. But X wants C to happen for unrelated reason Y.
     iii. Ergo, B is false, so D is true.

Example:
"But, surely Random Politician, your opponent, Another Random Politician, claims that lack of education can eventually lead to recession."
"Of course he would say that, he comes from an undereducated and simultaneously poor family."

RP did not refute ARP's argument, he just gave possible reasons which could cause ARP to give that specific argument, which RP considered ad hoc to be false. Maybe he is poor, but that hasd nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

No what I meant was the thread itself. By making a thread like this you are trying to discredit the theory by showing why they believe it.

Shouldn't you just be trying to disprove the theory instead? It's more fun that way anyway.

far as I know, waves go up and down, and I know I'm seeing the ship descending, not vanishing and suddenly appearing again.

There are a lot waves at the horizon as it approaches to a point, a sharp edge. You never see the edge moving up and down, do you? There is a clear and distinct solid  edge. At the point of the edge there are hundreds upon hundreds of waves in the way. The ship reaches that point and as it shrinks further into the horizon its hull is obscured more and more.

*If you measure the angle of the light hitting the ground in one place, travel west or east, and measure it again, it will be slightly different.

No they wouldn't. Not even on a Round Earth with the sun at zenith. Traveling North or South is necessary to see a different angle to a shadow.

*Consider Occam's Razor. Not a proof, but gives you a clue. You multiply entities, in which case is not necessary

Look out your window and consider Occam's Razor.

Lastly, a question: If the Earth looks like Flat Earthers depict it on maps, does this mean that planes do not follow a straight line when travelling from, say, USA to China? Or do they follow a straight line, which is plainly not true, because one can sometimes see the ground below him, and does not see ice?

Circumnavigation is perfectly possible on a Flat Earth. The layout of the Flat Earth has the point of magnetic North at the center of its hub, with the continents spread around it in a layout similar to the one depicted here.

Since a compass always points North, this means that when traveling East or West a pilot or boat captain is continually curving around magnetic North as the direction of East or West changes with longitude. Therefore, on a Flat Earth: North is Hubward, South is Rimward, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

-

As for your ignorant "we do not curve as we travel East or West on a Round Earth" supposition, consider:

Lets hypothetically say that we are at the North Pole on the top of a Round Earth and have a compass. We are positioned twenty feet from the point of magnetic North and we want to travel East. In order to continue East we must constantly and continually curve around the point of magnetic North.

Got any more, hotshot?

You say waves have this effect, yet it has never been shown to be true. A means for something to occur does not imply its occurrence, it does not even imply the likelihood of it's occurrence. The roundness of the earth has been shown by the space program amongst others, and the means for a conspiracy, though present as you claim, is neither proof of, or evidence for, the existence of a conspiracy.

You say waves have this effect, yet it has never been shown to be true. A means for something to occur does not imply its occurrence,

Consider a 3D model with an infinite perfectly flat plane. Any receding object on the surface gets smaller and smaller the more distant it gets, right?

At the edge of the horizon, any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks.

Pure Geometry.

The roundness of the earth has been shown by the space program amongst others

Your trust in science as being a perfect unerring saint is a profound ignorance. You may as well trust the students in your community college not to swipe the twenty you accidentally left on the cafeteria table as you headed off to the restroom. As, Zetetics, skeptics and seekers of truth, we must do away with the dogmatic primitive beliefs of the past.

There are a lot waves at the horizon as it approaches to a point, a sharp edge. You never see the edge moving up and down, do you? There is a clear and distinct solid  edge. At the point of the edge there are hundreds upon hundreds of waves in the way. The ship reaches that point and as it shrinks further into the horizon its hull is obscured more and more.

I hope you can see the contradiction in this one. If there are lots of waves, there is no distinct edge.

*If you measure the angle of the light hitting the ground in one place, travel west or east, and measure it again, it will be slightly different.

No they wouldn't. Not even on a Round Earth with the sun at zenith. Traveling North or South is necessary to see a different angle to a shadow.

Sorry for the "ignorant" West-or-East argument. I meant to say South or North, but I mixed it up in the proccess. Just do it. Travel north and see that the angle changes.

Look out your window and consider Occam's Razor.

Consider what? That everything is a conspiracy, that there's a giant Ice Wall, that the Sun is like a spotlight, that the radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus, and that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards? You keep on multiplying entities, while you can simply say that the Earth orbits the sun and rotates around its axis.

Circumnavigation is perfectly possible on a Flat Earth. The layout of the Flat Earth has the point of magnetic North at the center of its hub, with the continents spread around it in a layout similar to the one depicted here.

Since a compass always points North, this means that when traveling East or West a pilot or boat captain is continually curving around magnetic North as the direction of East or West changes with longitude. Therefore, on a Flat Earth: North is Hubward, South is Rimward, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

See your map: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3500.
If I travel from America to China on a plane, wouldn't I have to pass thgrough Arctica?

P.S.I'm an athiest. The shape of the earth has nothing to do with religion. Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

I was just using a figure of speech. I meant Earth-Shape agnosticism.

Quote from: R-Tard on April 22, 2007, 12:23:49 PM

Quote from: Captain Moustachio on April 22, 2007, 11:34:08 AM

This thread is an example of Bulverism, surely?

Yes it is.

Def: i. X says, "A implies B".
      ii. But X wants C to happen for unrelated reason Y.
     iii. Ergo, B is false, so D is true.

Example:
"But, surely Random Politician, your opponent, Another Random Politician, claims that lack of education can eventually lead to recession."
"Of course he would say that, he comes from an undereducated and simultaneously poor family."

RP did not refute ARP's argument, he just gave possible reasons which could cause ARP to give that specific argument, which RP considered ad hoc to be false. Maybe he is poor, but that hasd nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

No what I meant was the thread itself. By making a thread like this you are trying to discredit the theory by showing why they believe it.

Shouldn't you just be trying to disprove the theory instead? It's more fun that way anyway.

I wasn't trying to disprove the theory, I just wanted to point out an inaccuracy, and indicate that it is not certainly correct, which leads us again to scepticism. Somehow, the thread turned to debate about its validity.

Consider a 3D model with an infinite perfectly flat plane. Any receding object on the surface gets smaller and smaller the more distant it gets, right?

At the edge of the horizon, any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks.

Pure Geometry.

Very good Tom, but you seem to be unable to understand or read my posts. Listen again.

Just because you can show how something can happen, doesn't mean it is happening.

In other words, the means for an event to occur does not imply its occurrence, or the likelihood of its occurrence.

In the above quote you showed the means (though I disagree that the effect you describe could occur, let's for now pretend there are no problems with your theory) for a ship to dip below the horizon, you did not show that this is what is happening. You provided an FE alternative to the RE idea, but you gave no reason to accept this idea over RE. This seems to be a giant problem for you, as I see it in most of your theory-based posts.

Quote from: Captain Moustachio on April 22, 2007, 01:44:23 PM

Quote from: R-Tard on April 22, 2007, 12:23:49 PM

Quote from: Captain Moustachio on April 22, 2007, 11:34:08 AM

This thread is an example of Bulverism, surely?

Yes it is.

Def: i. X says, "A implies B".
      ii. But X wants C to happen for unrelated reason Y.
     iii. Ergo, B is false, so D is true.

Example:
"But, surely Random Politician, your opponent, Another Random Politician, claims that lack of education can eventually lead to recession."
"Of course he would say that, he comes from an undereducated and simultaneously poor family."

RP did not refute ARP's argument, he just gave possible reasons which could cause ARP to give that specific argument, which RP considered ad hoc to be false. Maybe he is poor, but that hasd nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

No what I meant was the thread itself. By making a thread like this you are trying to discredit the theory by showing why they believe it.

Shouldn't you just be trying to disprove the theory instead? It's more fun that way anyway.

I wasn't trying to disprove the theory, I just wanted to point out an inaccuracy, and indicate that it is not certainly correct, which leads us again to scepticism. Somehow, the thread turned to debate about its validity.

I know you're not trying to disprove the theory that's the whole point.

NASA and the Federal Reserve are in cahoots. Many of its prominent organizers were the same people. Please watch this video from start to end on the subject of the Federal Reserve scam: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism

It's a long video, but if you grow insistent, skip to the 57 minute mark.

I started watching it.  Then I went out a bought a car with all the money my grandpa pocketed while being senior vice president of the federal reserve bank in Chicago.
The guy who made that isnt the smartest.  He is clearly anti tax.  If there were no taxes where would the government get money to do anything?  No government money for roads and grants or anything.   

Look out your window and consider Occam's Razor.

Ok, you no longer exist because you are not out my window.  No one exists because noone is out my window. 

Heres a website another government conspiracy. 
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html