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.
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.