Just a question.

Is there any proof for the government hiding the Earth's shape?

As near as I can tell, the FE'ers have no strong evidence to support the existence of a global conspiracy.  Unfortunatelly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to them.  If you belive the earth to be flat, then there MUST be a cover up to fit the observable facts.  And that's evidence enough for them.

Of course, if any Fe'ers here think they do have evidence of a cover up, I am more then willing to here it. . .

No, no. Lack of evidence IS best evidence for conspiracy. Any crackpot, even completely rookie kook, knows that.

Wow.

 :shock:

I don't know what to say.

The principle is fairly basic. The function of many of the arguments on this site is to prove that the Earth is flat. If it can be proved that the Earth is flat, then the government would surely know that it is. Ergo, they would be lying.

In normal circumstances, the presence of a motive for the conspiracy would be essential. However, it can be bypassed simply by proving a necessity: if the Earth is flat, there is a conspiracy. Simple logic. It can be fun to speculate on the potential motives, even if you're just messing around, but ultimately it brings nothing to the debate.

I recognise that saying "the reason is unknown" is not the most satisfying conclusion. However, whereas in most cases a motive would be a necessity, in this case it is not, as proof of a flat Earth would also prove the existence of a conspiracy. Therefore, discovering the motive could safely wait until proof of flat Earth is found.

Is there any proof for the government hiding the Earth's shape?

Yes, there is. One irrefutible, undeniable fact proves that the government is hiding the Earth's shape.

They say it is round.

The principle is fairly basic. The function of many of the arguments on this site is to prove that the Earth is flat. If it can be proved that the Earth is flat, then the government would surely know that it is. Ergo, they would be lying.

In normal circumstances, the presence of a motive for the conspiracy would be essential. However, it can be bypassed simply by proving a necessity: if the Earth is flat, there is a conspiracy. Simple logic. It can be fun to speculate on the potential motives, even if you're just messing around, but ultimately it brings nothing to the debate.

I recognise that saying "the reason is unknown" is not the most satisfying conclusion. However, whereas in most cases a motive would be a necessity, in this case it is not, as proof of a flat Earth would also prove the existence of a conspiracy. Therefore, discovering the motive could safely wait until proof of flat Earth is found.

Indeed bugman.  The problem is, you're going to be ignored just like me, Cinlef, Erasmus, Unimportant, EnragedPenguin, 6strings, and many other people who have been stressing this.

Quote from: "Bugman"

The principle is fairly basic. The function of many of the arguments on this site is to prove that the Earth is flat. If it can be proved that the Earth is flat, then the government would surely know that it is. Ergo, they would be lying.

In normal circumstances, the presence of a motive for the conspiracy would be essential. However, it can be bypassed simply by proving a necessity: if the Earth is flat, there is a conspiracy. Simple logic. It can be fun to speculate on the potential motives, even if you're just messing around, but ultimately it brings nothing to the debate.

I recognise that saying "the reason is unknown" is not the most satisfying conclusion. However, whereas in most cases a motive would be a necessity, in this case it is not, as proof of a flat Earth would also prove the existence of a conspiracy. Therefore, discovering the motive could safely wait until proof of flat Earth is found.

Indeed bugman.  The problem is, you're going to be ignored just like me, Cinlef, Erasmus, Unimportant, EnragedPenguin, 6strings, and many other people who have been stressing this.

It's understandable that people would demand a motive at first. Modern society demands explanations for all actions. At first, I was annoyed at the dismissal of the need for a motive, because it felt like a cop-out. However, I thought about it, and realised that it is not an imminent necessity. I would presume that most casual visitors are just unwilling to apply to much thought to the matter.

To be honest, when I first came here a couple of months ago, it was for the sole purpose of trolling and winding people up. Once I understood the nature of the forums better, I was kind of won over, and that's when I started applying actual thought to the matter. I think anyone who sticks around for more than a fleeting visit should ultimately be able to get hold of the principles.

It's understandable that people would demand a motive at first. Modern society demands explanations for all actions. At first, I was annoyed at the dismissal of the need for a motive, because it felt like a cop-out. However, I thought about it, and realised that it is not an imminent necessity. I would presume that most casual visitors are just unwilling to apply to much thought to the matter.

To be honest, when I first came here a couple of months ago, it was for the sole purpose of trolling and winding people up. Once I understood the nature of the forums better, I was kind of won over, and that's when I started applying actual thought to the matter. I think anyone who sticks around for more than a fleeting visit should ultimately be able to get hold of the principles.

 :wink:

Unfortunately, I can't say the same about many other people.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from with that Bugman, thanks.

See what I mean socialaztec?

They don't provide any direct evidence of a conspiracy, they mearly assume the conclusion and say "The Earth is flat, therefore there must be a conspiracy."

This reveals a fundamental flaw in the Fe'ers understanding of the nature of hypothesis and proof.

A hypothesis is a statement whose truthfulness is not known, but which -- if it were true -- would explain some set of observations.

The proof of that hypothesis would be some other observation which would be seen if and only if that particular hypothesis were true, and not, say, some other hypothesis which also explains the first observations.

But the problem comes when Fe'ers want to test a hypothesis. You can't use the initial observation as proof of your hypothesis. This is a fallacy -- an example of erroneous thinking -- which logicians call a "circular argument". The notion of a circular argument can be best summed up in the following dialogue from one of the best movies ever made:

Sir Bedevere: Why are you trying to burn that woman?
Villagers: Because she is a witch!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: Well, we wouldn't be trying to burn her if she weren't.

Let's say, for example, that I observed my car windshield was wet. I might hypothesize that it has recently rained. But how would I prove that? If I were like the villagers in the exchange above, I would consider it already proved: The wet windshield proves it rained.

But the wet windshield was the observation I was trying to explain.

To know whether or not it rained I would need to look for other signs of recent rain. For example, I could look at the sky and see if it's cloudy. Or I could see if the distant surroundings were also wet. Or I could ask somebody who may have witnessed the rain.

I have to do that because there are lots of other hypotheses.

With the circular argument I can put each of these hypotheses into a syllogism and say,

My windshield is wet, therefore it has rained.
My windshield is wet, therefore moisture has leached out of the glass.
My windshield is wet, therefore a sprinkler has sprayed my car.

All three of these seem reasonable, but they all can't be correct. I can be absurd and hypothesize that my windshield is wet because space aliens are spying on me and put that moisture there to absorb my brainwave patterns.

The resulting "proof" would be:
My windshield is wet, therefore aliens are spying on my brainwave patterns.

Yes, that's supposed to sound absurd. It's supposed to show that a pattern of reasoning which can produce such absurd conclusions isn't a valid pattern of reasoning. Circular arguments are "tautological" meaning that they're always true. They're true not because they arrive at a good conclusion, they're true because they're structured to be true no matter what conclusion or premise is involved. That's why they aren't useful for proving anything.

Let's do an example that involves FE arguments.

FE'ers observe that in photographs from supposedly orbiting spacecraft, there are flaws which seem to indicate that the photo is faked or modified. They hypothesize that the photos were produced by NASA with image rendering software.  This hypothesis, if true, would explain the observation.

But how to go about proving it? Unfortunately most FEer's simply use the circular argument. When asked to provide evidence that a photo is faked, they point back to the errors and say, "See? The errors are there, therefore they were created in the lab."

But reasonable people are not convinced by the tautological argument, nor should they be. When we say there is no evidence for the existence of a government FE conspiracy, we mean that there is no evidence which undeniably and unquestionably shows that the conspiracy exists. The FE'ers need to provide secondary, unambiguous evidence that could only be explained by their hypothesis. For example, they could try to find increased activity at government-funded photo labs. They could try to document the purchase of equipment and supplies by NASA that would only be useful to a photo lab that was falsifying pictures. They could even try to find some of the people who participated in this alleged cover up of the shape of the Earth.

I use the reasoning:

A implies B.
A, therefore B.

If we prove A-that the Earth is flat, then we prove B-that the conspiracy is real.
We can't prove B without proving A, because B is only true if A is true.

It would be circular reasoning only if we said "The earth is flat, therefore there is a conspiracy. Since there is a conspiracy, the earth is flat."
We don't use the conspiracy to prove that Earth is flat. Although if we proved Earth is flat, we would use that to prove the conspiracy.

That still doesn't answer the question Enraged_Penguin.

The fact is, you arguments are still tautological because the only evidence you have of the existence of the conspiracy is the flatness of the earth.

The earth is flat ---> there must be a conspiracy.

The problem is, you can never prove the Earth to be flat, in a scientific context.  So there is no way the shape of the Earth could function as a legitamate argument.

What you can do is provide direct physical evidence of the conspiracy, evidence that exists whether or not the Earth is flat.

This would include (But by no means be limited to):

Confessions from gov. workers
Gov. documents mentioning the shape of the planet
Photographic evidence of the existence of the ice wall guards.
Evidence that penguins were created to function as food for the guards(?)
Or any part of the paper trail that must result from keeping hundreds of thousands of people quite.

And there are so many other things that would count.

This is what we mean when we ask for evidence.  Pieces of information that are valid whether of not the Earth is flat.

So, can any FE'er provide evidence of the government FE conspiracy?

The problem is, you can never prove the Earth to be flat, in a scientific context.  So there is no way the shape of the Earth could function as a legitamate argument.

I don't think you quite understand here. If Earth is flat, then the government is lying. The government has to be lying, because they keep saying it's round. There is no other possibilty, if Earth is flat, the government. Is. Lying.
Of course, the government is only lying if Earth is flat. So the only way to prove that the government is lying is to prove that Earth is flat.

The only reason Flat Earthers claim that there is a conspiracy, is because if Earth is flat, then the governments are lying every time they say it isn't.

What you're asking for here is evidence that proves the conspiracy, whether Earth is flat or not, but the conspiracy only exists if Earth is flat.

So, can any FE'er provide evidence of the government FE conspiracy?

Only if Earth really is flat.

The earth is flat ---> there must be a conspiracy.

How is this circular reasoning? A implies B. If A, then B.

I'll say this one more time, Flat Earthers do not use the conspiracy to prove that Earth is flat.

The Earth is Flat ----> There is a conspiracy to cover it up.

What is the evidence of the conspiracy?

The Government says the Earth is round -----> The Earth is Flat (Loop)

I know that your not using the existence of the conspiracy to prove the shape of the Earth, but you are [/i]using the shape of the Earth as the only evidence of the conspiracy.[/i]

All I'm asking for is evidence that is legit regardless of the shape of the Earth.  It really shouldn't be to hard.

Again, circular reasoning or not, you can never prove that the Earth is flat.  So if your relying on that as your evidence of the conspiracy, that is a very weak argument.

What you can do is provide evidence that is independant of the shape of the Earth.  Take any of the examples in my last post.

So I ask again, can you provide evidence for the conspiracy?  It shouldn't be that hard.

The Earth is Flat ----> There is a conspiracy to cover it up.

What is the evidence of the conspiracy?

This really isn't that hard; if Earth is flat there is a conspiracy. End of story. In order to prove the existence or nonexistence of the conspiracy you first have to prove the shape of Earth.
 So debating the motive behind the conspiracy is a complete waste of time.

See what I mean socialaztec?

They don't provide any direct evidence of a conspiracy, they mearly assume the conclusion and say "The Earth is flat, therefore there must be a conspiracy."

This reveals a fundamental flaw in the Fe'ers understanding of the nature of hypothesis and proof.

A hypothesis is a statement whose truthfulness is not known, but which -- if it were true -- would explain some set of observations.

The proof of that hypothesis would be some other observation which would be seen if and only if that particular hypothesis were true, and not, say, some other hypothesis which also explains the first observations.

But the problem comes when Fe'ers want to test a hypothesis. You can't use the initial observation as proof of your hypothesis. This is a fallacy -- an example of erroneous thinking -- which logicians call a "circular argument". The notion of a circular argument can be best summed up in the following dialogue from one of the best movies ever made:

Sir Bedevere: Why are you trying to burn that woman?
Villagers: Because she is a witch!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: Well, we wouldn't be trying to burn her if she weren't.

Let's say, for example, that I observed my car windshield was wet. I might hypothesize that it has recently rained. But how would I prove that? If I were like the villagers in the exchange above, I would consider it already proved: The wet windshield proves it rained.

But the wet windshield was the observation I was trying to explain.

To know whether or not it rained I would need to look for other signs of recent rain. For example, I could look at the sky and see if it's cloudy. Or I could see if the distant surroundings were also wet. Or I could ask somebody who may have witnessed the rain.

I have to do that because there are lots of other hypotheses.

With the circular argument I can put each of these hypotheses into a syllogism and say,

My windshield is wet, therefore it has rained.
My windshield is wet, therefore moisture has leached out of the glass.
My windshield is wet, therefore a sprinkler has sprayed my car.

All three of these seem reasonable, but they all can't be correct. I can be absurd and hypothesize that my windshield is wet because space aliens are spying on me and put that moisture there to absorb my brainwave patterns.

The resulting "proof" would be:
My windshield is wet, therefore aliens are spying on my brainwave patterns.

Yes, that's supposed to sound absurd. It's supposed to show that a pattern of reasoning which can produce such absurd conclusions isn't a valid pattern of reasoning. Circular arguments are "tautological" meaning that they're always true. They're true not because they arrive at a good conclusion, they're true because they're structured to be true no matter what conclusion or premise is involved. That's why they aren't useful for proving anything.

Let's do an example that involves FE arguments.

FE'ers observe that in photographs from supposedly orbiting spacecraft, there are flaws which seem to indicate that the photo is faked or modified. They hypothesize that the photos were produced by NASA with image rendering software.  This hypothesis, if true, would explain the observation.

But how to go about proving it? Unfortunately most FEer's simply use the circular argument. When asked to provide evidence that a photo is faked, they point back to the errors and say, "See? The errors are there, therefore they were created in the lab."

But reasonable people are not convinced by the tautological argument, nor should they be. When we say there is no evidence for the existence of a government FE conspiracy, we mean that there is no evidence which undeniably and unquestionably shows that the conspiracy exists. The FE'ers need to provide secondary, unambiguous evidence that could only be explained by their hypothesis. For example, they could try to find increased activity at government-funded photo labs. They could try to document the purchase of equipment and supplies by NASA that would only be useful to a photo lab that was falsifying pictures. They could even try to find some of the people who participated in this alleged cover up of the shape of the Earth.

*takes head to table many, many, MANY times*

Dear god.

Quote from: "socialaztec"

Is there any proof for the government hiding the Earth's shape?

Yes, there is. One irrefutible, undeniable fact proves that the government is hiding the Earth's shape.

They say it is round.

That is the most stupid fucking attempt at logic I have ever seen. You really are a fucktard.

That is the most stupid f**king attempt at logic I have ever seen. You really are a f**ktard.

Thank you for your input, Yardstick. Truly enlightening.

Quote from: "Yardstick2006"

That is the most stupid f**king attempt at logic I have ever seen. You really are a f**ktard.

Thank you for your input, Yardstick. Truly enlightening.

Up yours traitor.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Quote from: "socialaztec"

Is there any proof for the government hiding the Earth's shape?

Yes, there is. One irrefutible, undeniable fact proves that the government is hiding the Earth's shape.

They say it is round.

That is the most stupid fucking attempt at logic I have ever seen. You really are a fucktard.

lol ur rong