Well, it's very simple. If it's been proven that the Earth is flat, as any legitimate FEer will claim is the case, and if sustained spaceflight is impossible if the Earth is flat, as many FEers rationally argue is the case, then space exploration must be a Conspiracy.
See the problem with this is that it is an assumption based off of an assumption based off yet another assumption. The keyword here is "if."
If the earth was proven to be flat then I would have no issue believing it is flat; but that would rely on the idea that the Earth has actually been proven to be flat... which it hasn't.
Going back to a fundamental theory of science, you cannot necessarily prove something to be true, you can only indefinitely prove something to be false. So perhaps we have not proven the earth to be round; however, we (the human race) have collectively provided substantial and replicable evidence to indicate that the world is a sphere. Unfortunately, flat earth theory lacks this kind abundance of evidence. Rather, flat earth theory relies on raw observations (viewed through the limitation of the human eye) and an archaic text that convincingly resembles what the bible is to a catholic (I choose this analogy not to bash catholics or religion, but rather show that flat earth theory seems to be more of a
faith based idealogy rather than a plausible scientific theory).
Or, looked at another way, if it's the case that the view from space is impossible if the Earth is flat, and the Earth is flat, then space exploration must be a Conspiracy. It's not illogical; it's essentially a corollary to FET, as it's not necessary for a Conspiracy to exist if the generally-held FET is true, but as conditions do exist, if the generally-held FET is true, a Conspiracy must exist. Actually, it's highly logical, as logic is the only real reason to believe it.
Ok, I see your
basic logic, but I still believe that this is backwards science; reason being, in order for this to be true you have to completely ignore the copious amount of evidence that
already exists which supports a a round earth. Not to sound counterintuitive, but to me, this sounds like irrational logic. I understand what you mean by the existance of a conspiracy being a corollary to flat earth theory but an equally as strong argument could be that the flat earth theory being false is a corollary of the non-existance of a conspiracy... it works both ways, and one's legitimacy over another soley relies on evidence, evidence and some more evidence. Again, with Ockham's razor in mind, I am forced to stick with round earth theory.
And to further my point... the defining aspect of pseudoscience: "is often used to describe scientific hypotheses or conclusions which, while perhaps
legitimate in themselves, are believed to be used to support a position that is seen as not legitimately justified by the
totality of evidence."