The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

Quote from: Ski on December 02, 2011, 08:33:04 AM

It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

That doesn't mean that it's correct, just because it's traditional.

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 02, 2011, 12:22:30 PM

Quote from: Ski on December 02, 2011, 08:33:04 AM

It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

That doesn't mean that it's correct, just because it's traditional.

And just because that post was correct doesn't mean it added anything to the conversation.

I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 09:03:46 AM

Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.

lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 09:51:24 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 09:03:46 AM

Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.

lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!

No, not quite, Pizza.

The applicable fallacy (on your part, of course) is burden of proof.

Note: I restored Zhark's original quote, undoing your subtle deception (quoting only the phrase "endorsed by millions", ignoring the more damning "validated" vs. "questionable" part).

Quote from: zarg on December 03, 2011, 02:31:00 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 09:51:24 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 09:03:46 AM

Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.

lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!

No, not quite, Pizza.

The applicable fallacy (on your part, of course) is burden of proof.

Note: I restored Zhark's original quote, undoing your subtle deception (quoting only the phrase "endorsed by millions", ignoring the more damning "validated" vs. "questionable" part).

The burden isn't on skeptics to prove popular opinion (ie. religion) wrong. The burden is on the people making the claim. The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

The burden isn't on skeptics to prove popular opinion (ie. religion) wrong. The burden is on the people making the claim. The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

The only problem with using these maps is that distances and areas are not preserved. A true FE map would be capable of doing this while remaining a 2D representation.

I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 02, 2011, 10:26:31 AM

The only problem with using these maps is that distances and areas are not preserved. A true FE map would be capable of doing this while remaining a 2D representation.

I have already stated many times that to my mind the lack of a complete and verifiably accurate map is the biggest hinderance to the modern flat earth movement. On this point, I am now, as always, in complete and utter agreement with you. I am not sure what you else you could possibly want from me on this score other than to rub our noses in something beyond the capability of the members of this forum. Mapping the surface of the earth is certainly beyond our ability as individuals or a whole.
Neither does your constantly associated assertion that my grandfather's globe is accurate prove the veracity of that claim.

While the FES hasn't physically walked around with a ruler to accurately map the Earth, methods exist for creating a map that don't depend on first hand measurement. For example, if we take the known distances between cities in the northern and southern hemispheres and try to put them in a 3D space so that all the distances between each city is accurate, the shape you will get is a sphere.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 03, 2011, 05:03:38 PM

While the FES hasn't physically walked around with a ruler to accurately map the Earth, methods exist for creating a map that don't depend on first hand measurement. For example, if we take the known distances between cities in the northern and southern hemispheres and try to put them in a 3D space so that all the distances between each city is accurate, the shape you will get is a sphere.

This only really applies to distances between points on landmasses. I agree that landmasses are already generally correctly modeled. To my knowledge, noone is disagreeing with this.  It is the oceanic distances on which we are in disagreement.

Quote from: El Cid on December 02, 2011, 09:15:57 PM

I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

This is the most ridiculous post in the sequence. I can't imagine why you posted it twice in an attempt to get it answered. Do you have any evidence at all of for your baseless assertion in the first sentence? Any citation of reputable source?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2011, 03:13:44 PM

The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

Thank you, but I'm already perfectly aware of what burden of proof is. Otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. Ironically, as per the wording of your own wiki article that you posted, this discussion is certainly one of the most clear-cut examples wherein your claims are the ones where the burden of proof lies:

Quote

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

The subject that you are "skeptics" on is, essentially, observation itself. While you wouldn't say it in so many words, you do freely admit that "the most easily observable" perception is one of curvature, and you explain this by making claims about how light distorts our "naive" observations. Thus it's up to you to back up those claims.

Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model. Perhaps you should update your wiki article?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44564.msg1105763#msg1105763

I think this is quite a good summary of the burden of proof debate.

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 04, 2011, 03:44:15 AM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44564.msg1105763#msg1105763

I think this is quite a good summary of the burden of proof debate.

That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.

That Earth is a sphere may have been a new claim hundreds of years ago, but it is far from it today. Those purporting that belief already had their turn bearing the burden, and their proof has long been demonstrated. Now it's your turn. You are now putting forth new laws of physics, making accusations of conspiracy, and so forth. These are new claims.

If you expect your side to ever have any credence whatsoever, you will need to accept the fact that at this point you do carry the burden of proof, and act accordingly. You could start with a map.

That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.

Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."