Theory basis

Hi people!

I found this site via the BBC article, and I am fascinated. Having read through the FAQ and quite a few threads, however, I am left wondering something very basic.

See, very many answers in the FAQ seem to rely on the presupposition that the Earth is indeed flat. For instance:

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

However, neither the FAQ nor any of the threads I've read actually explains this presupposition. Why the belief that the Earth is flat to begin with?

Mr Davis, a 25-year-old computer scientist originally from Canada, first became interested in flat earth theory after "coming across some literature from the Flat Earth Society a few years ago".

"I came to realise how much we take at face value," he says. "We humans seem to be pleased with just accepting what we are told, no matter how much it goes against our senses."

I woke up this morning, I walked outside: the earth was flat.  That is all.

I woke up this morning, I walked outside: the earth was flat.  That is all.

Surely, you cannot discard the possibility that the Earth might be round on such a loose basis? On that same line, you could say that since matter is smooth, it cannot be made up of discrete units like atoms. Or, since space is seemingly flat, the theory of relativity cannot be true.

Hi people!

I found this site via the BBC article, and I am fascinated. Having read through the FAQ and quite a few threads, however, I am left wondering something very basic.

See, very many answers in the FAQ seem to rely on the presupposition that the Earth is indeed flat. For instance:

Quote

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

However, neither the FAQ nor any of the threads I've read actually explains this presupposition. Why the belief that the Earth is flat to begin with?

FAQ (I know you said you read it, but I suggest you pay attention this time).

you guys are all idiots, you NEVER support the origional statement that the earth is flat, all you do is use that to explain it, say; "read the FAQ" or call us idiots in some way that is supposed to make you seem dignified, while just making you seem like 9 year olds.

you guys are all idiots, you NEVER support the origional statement that the earth is flat, all you do is use that to explain it, say; "read the FAQ" or call us idiots in some way that is supposed to make you seem dignified, while just making you seem like 9 year olds.

It is because any reason you have is prolly enough to disprove it, like the horizon.  Sorry, light doesn't curve into an optical illusion.

FAQ (I know you said you read it, but I suggest you pay attention this time).

Oh sorry, I thought that the link to the book was just an Amazon link, but it seems that was not the case. Just a question; is it mainly this book that fuels your belief in a flat Earth?

you guys are all idiots, you NEVER support the origional statement that the earth is flat, all you do is use that to explain it, say; "read the FAQ" or call us idiots in some way that is supposed to make you seem dignified, while just making you seem like 9 year olds.

You are a shrill and semi-literate hybrid of Eric Bloedow and ROUNDP00. Congratulations.

[] Prove gravity exists
[] GTFO

Just a question; is it mainly this book that fuels your belief in a flat Earth?

Science is our fuel. Reason and truth is our guide.

Science is our fuel. Reason and truth is our guide.

Yes, sorry; I realize I have put that phrase badly. Let me reformulate myself:

Given how many of the phenomena in the world that are very precisely explained and predicted by the round Earth and non-geocentric theory, I must guess that you would have extraordinary reason in order to discard it. Are the experiments described in the book the major part of that reason, or are there other experiments that you would make to gain such certainty?

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on August 11, 2008, 02:35:02 PM

Science is our fuel. Reason and truth is our guide.

Yes, sorry; I realize I have put that phrase badly. Let me reformulate myself:

Given how many of the phenomena in the world that are very precisely explained and predicted by the round Earth and non-geocentric theory, I must guess that you would have extraordinary reason in order to discard it. Are the experiments described in the book the major part of that reason, or are there other experiments that you would make to gain such certainty?

That varies. The experiments contained within the book are certainly sufficient on their own, but there are certainly other methods independent of Rowbotham's studies that may also be employed. For example, to start your journey to FE truth, all that really must be done is a quick glance out of your window. Everything else follows.

I have to agree with Mr Wilde in that my initial impression that the earth was actually flat came not from any book but from my own senses.  My own eyes tell me that the earth is flat.

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

I woke up this morning, I walked outside: the earth was flat.  That is all.

For example, to start your journey to FE truth, all that really must be done is a quick glance out of your window. Everything else follows.

My own eyes tell me that the earth is flat.

Much to my amazement, it does indeed seem that the most important basis for your certainty is that it looks flat. That seems overly simplistic to me. Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

I have to agree with Mr Wilde in that my initial impression that the earth was actually flat came not from any book but from my own senses.  My own eyes tell me that the earth is flat.

Or a very large sphere, which is the truth.

Quote

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

Quote from: 50 Cent on August 11, 2008, 11:59:36 AM

I woke up this morning, I walked outside: the earth was flat.  That is all.

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on August 11, 2008, 02:45:14 PM

For example, to start your journey to FE truth, all that really must be done is a quick glance out of your window. Everything else follows.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 11, 2008, 02:47:29 PM

My own eyes tell me that the earth is flat.

Much to my amazement, it does indeed seem that the most important basis for your certainty is that it looks flat. That seems overly simplistic to me. Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

While I'm fundamentally skeptical about the basics of all of them, I have seen no reason to deny their existence.

Then why do you deny the fact that the earth is round?

Then why do you deny the fact that the earth is flat?

I don't.  That's my whole point.  You deny the fact that the earth is flat. 

Much to my amazement, it does indeed seem that the most important basis for your certainty is that it looks flat. That seems overly simplistic to me. Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

We would deny the existence of such things if there were no evidence for them. That is zeteticism. We do not rely soley on our direct perceptions (that would contradict our entire philosophy), but they certainly give us an excellent starting point.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new 'fact'."
– Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987

Quote from: Dolda2000 on August 11, 2008, 03:12:18 PM

Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

While I'm fundamentally skeptical about the basics of all of them, I have seen no reason to deny their existence.

Then why do you deny the round Earth? You stated previously that you denied the Earth's roundness because it looks flat. Should you not then deny atoms since matter looks smooth?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 11, 2008, 03:14:28 PM

Quote from: Dolda2000 on August 11, 2008, 03:12:18 PM

Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

While I'm fundamentally skeptical about the basics of all of them, I have seen no reason to deny their existence.

Then why do you deny the round Earth? You stated previously that you denied the Earth's roundness because it looks flat. Should you not then deny atoms since matter looks smooth?

There is sufficient evidence that contradicts our senses in certain cases. I personally believe the materialist theory of atoms to be one of them. If someone were to declare the existence of atoms arbitrarily, though, I would indeed question it on the very grounds you stated above.

However, the evidence for a flat earth far outweighs that of a round one (even if we were to disregard the significant fact that it looks flat). Until RE can catch up and get its story straight, I'm perfectly content (and justified) in trusting my direct perceptions.

Quote from: Dolda2000 on August 11, 2008, 03:33:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 11, 2008, 03:14:28 PM

Quote from: Dolda2000 on August 11, 2008, 03:12:18 PM

Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

While I'm fundamentally skeptical about the basics of all of them, I have seen no reason to deny their existence.

Then why do you deny the round Earth? You stated previously that you denied the Earth's roundness because it looks flat. Should you not then deny atoms since matter looks smooth?

There is sufficient evidence that contradicts our senses in certain cases. I personally believe the materialist theory of atoms to be one of them. If someone were to declare the existence of atoms arbitrarily, though, I would indeed question it on the very grounds you stated above.

However, the evidence for a flat earth far outweighs that of a round one (even if we were to disregard the significant fact that it looks flat). Until RE can catch up and get its story straight, I'm perfectly content (and justified) in trusting my direct perceptions.

You know, I've read the FAQ and most of these thread and I have seen NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or observations which prove the earth is flat

Quote from: Christopher on August 11, 2008, 03:16:28 PM

Then why do you deny the fact that the earth is flat?

I don't.  That's my whole point.  You deny the fact that the earth is flat. 

Sorry, what I was supposed to write was: Why do you deny the fact that earth is round?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 11, 2008, 03:14:28 PM

Quote from: Dolda2000 on August 11, 2008, 03:12:18 PM

Please allow me another question: Do you also deny the existence of cells (in the biological sense), atoms and the theory of relativity, on the basis that you cannot perceive them directly?

While I'm fundamentally skeptical about the basics of all of them, I have seen no reason to deny their existence.

Then why do you deny the round Earth? You stated previously that you denied the Earth's roundness because it looks flat. Should you not then deny atoms since matter looks smooth?

Quite the contrary.  In fact, it only seems logical that you should be able to break matter up into some kind of fundamental particles.

You know, I've read the FAQ and most of these thread and I have seen NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or observations which prove the earth is flat

Well, in that case, lurk moar.

Quote from: FELUNATIC on August 11, 2008, 03:45:21 PM

You know, I've read the FAQ and most of these thread and I have seen NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or observations which prove the earth is flat

Well, in that case, lurk moar.

Hell, even I have seen evidence that supports the FET, and I'm RE to the bone. Or at least to the surface. you know. Of the... Earth.

You know, I've read the FAQ and most of these thread and I have seen NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or observations which prove the earth is flat

That's acceptable. Did you think this site exists to convert round earth believers to flat earth believers? It does not.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 11, 2008, 03:17:15 PM

Quote from: Christopher on August 11, 2008, 03:16:28 PM

Then why do you deny the fact that the earth is flat?

I don't.  That's my whole point.  You deny the fact that the earth is flat. 

Sorry, what I was supposed to write was: Why do you deny the fact that earth is round?

Because I can see quite clearly that the earth is not round.

I can see quite clearly that the sky is black. Is it?

I can see quite clearly that the sky is black. Is it?

Well the sky doesn't look black to me.  But if you're sure that's what you see I guess it is wherever you are.

Quote from: FELUNATIC on August 11, 2008, 03:45:21 PM

You know, I've read the FAQ and most of these thread and I have seen NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or observations which prove the earth is flat

Well, in that case, lurk moar.

Lurk more? are you unable to give evidence or does the evidence not exist? Or are you just one of those sheep who just follow the almighty leader?

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on August 11, 2008, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: FELUNATIC on August 11, 2008, 03:45:21 PM

You know, I've read the FAQ and most of these thread and I have seen NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or observations which prove the earth is flat

Well, in that case, lurk moar.

Lurk more? are you unable to give evidence or does the evidence not exist? Or are you just one of those sheep who just follow the almighty leader?

I don't think Oscar is a religious man, if that's what you're asking.