Seriously... why are we debating Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is fucking stupid. It's a useless piece of philosophical drivel.
The original point that I was making in my "tl;dr" post is that science attempts to make predictions about the world. Occam's Razor aside, the best theory is the one which can make the most accurate
predictions. And the fact remains that FET is NOT explained by any predictive theory. Every piece of FET had to be invented... Dark Energy? Shadow Object? Ice Wall? Conspiracy? All of these things are totally unrelated, except that they are required to describe normal observations while rejecting the hypothesis that the Earth is round. On the other hand, round-earth science can explain ALL observations with just two theories - Quantum Field Theory, General Theory of Relativity. And no, the theories are NOT inconsistent... they do NOT contradict each other. They simply do not predict each other. But I digress...
FET is useless because it does NOT make predictions. The only predictions it can successfully make are based on things that have already been observed. On the other hand, using science, I can successfully predict the outcome of a scenario without ever having seen a similar scenario before.
Prediction is what makes a good, useful theory, and
nothing else is relevant. And the fact is that science predicts a round earth, and subsequent predictions based on the acceptance of a round earth are accurate.
In response to Waste of Mind:
The exception I have in mind when describing the obvious necessity of FET to "invent" explanations is the Shadow Object. Round earth theory very easily and simply predicts the occurrence of lunar eclipses, but in order to account for them in FET, the Shadow Object was invented. Aside from the lunar eclipse, there is NO reason to believe that such an object exists. It was invented in order to match with an exception in observation. And as for your claim that lunar eclipses can only be viewed on the night side of round earth... Are you fucking stupid? Have you ever heard someone claim that you can observe a lunar eclipse during the daytime? Every competent child knows that if the earth is casting a shadow on the moon, it must be nighttime in order to observe it. I challenge you to back up your claim, and show me a single record of observation of a lunar eclipse during the daytime.
Assuming no outside influence, people would assume the world is flat.
You mean, assuming that all people are incapable of performing basic mathematics and making observations of the world? And assuming that people are stupid enough to assume that something on the observable scale is exactly what it appears to be on a scale of different magnitudes? Do you believe in atoms? Why should you? You have never seen one. Every direct observation of an atom requires incredibly expensive equipment... look out, everyone, IBM is a part of the conspiracy! They are refuting common observation!! They claim that all matter is NOT infinitely divisible! But obviously, if I take a knife, I can infinitely split a piece of bread, until I no longer have the dexterity to control the knife precisely enough. Atoms must be a hoax.
Look out your window. I don't see RE accounting for that observation
Looking out of my window doesn't account for Special Relativity, basic Chemistry, molecular Biology, or any other extremely micro or macro science. Congratulations, you're just incapable of accepting anything that requires in depth analysis.
and converges towards a simpler and more complete theory
Thank you for describing FET
How does FET converge? It starts with "the earth is flat" and from there, you add in Dark Energy (which was obviously stolen from cosmic observations of "normal" scientists), you invent the shadow object, you invent the Ice Wall, you invent the Conspiracy, you invent the idea of non-conservative "orbits" of celestial objects, you refute all evidence as being fake. I fail to see how this theory converges towards completion.
ad hoc - for or concerned with one specific purpose
The Shadow Object fits this description exactly.
Could you please cite an example of such a discrepancy?
You misunderstood what I was saying. The discrepancy I was pointing out was the obvious fact that the greatest minds on earth have been studying and explaining the world's extreme phenomena, and none of them have come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.