Intelligence in Debate

We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

I do not observe a flat earth.  If you zoom in on a tennis ball you will see a flat surface.  This is easily proven.  All you need to do is use the right instruments.  A trip down to a local college can provide you with the means to test this.  Thus, you cannot offer this as proof.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 06:58:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 06:53:45 PM

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.

Well, we can argue that the earth is triangular or square if you like.  Pick a shape.... or shall I point out again that both the flat earth and the spherical earth is round.  A quarter is round.  A baseball is round.  The difference here is flat or spherical.

Quote from: Pongo on April 08, 2012, 06:55:36 PM

Quote from: rayman on April 08, 2012, 06:46:14 PM

I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.

You are wrong.

Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.

There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.

Your arguments are unsound, but I hardly can expect better from a Round Earther.

We're all round earthers.  I think you meant Spherical Earther.   I'm finding it very hard to take your belief seriously when you have not even mastered the very basic geometrical shapes.  Without that very basic form of math, how can you expect me to believe that you have actually succeeded in disproving the physicists who disagree with you?

Quote from: Pongo on April 08, 2012, 04:57:28 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 04:49:21 PM

Quote

We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.

Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?

I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud?  The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.

Sigmund Freud?  A psychiatrist?  Why would anyone take the word of a student of the mind over the word of a student of astronomy and physics when it comes to hard facts and scientific data?   Freud didn't provide proof and evidence.  Psychiatrists deal in interpretations, not facts.

It takes more than a shrink to prove that the earth is flat.

I believe you have missed the point I was making. Gladly, all the information is preserved for you to review.

Quote from: rayman on April 08, 2012, 06:59:12 PM

Quote from: Pongo on April 08, 2012, 06:55:36 PM

Quote from: rayman on April 08, 2012, 06:46:14 PM

I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.

You are wrong.

Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.

There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.

Your arguments are unsound, but I hardly can expect better from a Round Earther.

Now you know exactly how REers feel about the FET arguments and the Nasa conspiracy theory.

 

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 08:04:43 PM

Quote from: Pongo on April 08, 2012, 04:57:28 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 04:49:21 PM

Quote

We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.

Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?

I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud?  The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.

Sigmund Freud?  A psychiatrist?  Why would anyone take the word of a student of the mind over the word of a student of astronomy and physics when it comes to hard facts and scientific data?   Freud didn't provide proof and evidence.  Psychiatrists deal in interpretations, not facts.

It takes more than a shrink to prove that the earth is flat.

I believe you have missed the point I was making. Gladly, all the information is preserved for you to review.

You missed my point, actually. My original post is still there and my question remains unanswered.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 06:43:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 05:31:53 PM

We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Spheres can approach 180 degrees angular size.  This geometric proof makes your sensorial evidence as much for a round earth as a flat one.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 06:53:45 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 06:43:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 05:31:53 PM

We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Spheres can approach 180 degrees angular size.  This geometric proof makes your sensorial evidence as much for a round earth as a flat one.

You'll never get any FE'er to admit that you can zoom in on a sphere enough so that it appears flat.  They know it's true, but they won't admit it.

That is nonsense. We've admitted as much scores of times. It is also true that the surface of a sufficiently large turtle might give this illusion; I find the turtle idea as laughable as your globe.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 07:21:09 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 06:58:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 06:53:45 PM

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.

Why not?  It certainly suggests the earth is not flat.  Unless you want to say its due to an optical effect, in which case how are you sure that an optical effect is not making the earth look flat out your window?

It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round".  It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence.  Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.

Well, we can argue that the earth is triangular or square if you like.

Why would we do that?  The Earth looks flat. 

Pick a shape.... or shall I point out again that both the flat earth and the spherical earth is round.  A quarter is round.  A baseball is round.  The difference here is flat or spherical.

Why would you bother?  Silly semantic arguments do not win debates.  It's well-understood what is meant by "round" vs "flat" on these forums.

I do not observe a flat earth.  If you zoom in on a tennis ball you will see a flat surface.  This is easily proven.  All you need to do is use the right instruments.  A trip down to a local college can provide you with the means to test this.  Thus, you cannot offer this as proof.

Thankfully your tennis ball experiment works as conceptual proof of concept for why I believe the Earth is flat.  If you zoom into a tennis ball enough, sure, it might look flat, but the direct sensorial evidence tells me that it is spherical.  I am sure you agree in this instance that the direct sensorial evidence supports the true shape of the tennis ball.  Why should I assume the Earth offers any other sort of result?

It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round".  It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence.  Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.

No, it is still direct sensorial evidence.  You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth.  You are directly observing that event.  That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round.  It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.

But debating that is irrelevant.  The issue is why do you ignore it if it directly conflicts with the assertion that the earth is flat?

No, it is still direct sensorial evidence.  You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth.  You are directly observing that event.  That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round.  It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.

It is not. Or if it is, it is only in the same sense that one could say it is direct sensorial evidence of the world being an astronomically large turtle.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on April 08, 2012, 07:55:02 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 07:21:09 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 06:58:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 06:53:45 PM

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.

Why not?  It certainly suggests the earth is not flat.  Unless you want to say its due to an optical effect, in which case how are you sure that an optical effect is not making the earth look flat out your window?

It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round".  It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence.  Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 08:08:26 PM

Well, we can argue that the earth is triangular or square if you like.

Why would we do that?  The Earth looks flat. 

Quote

Pick a shape.... or shall I point out again that both the flat earth and the spherical earth is round.  A quarter is round.  A baseball is round.  The difference here is flat or spherical.

Why would you bother?  Silly semantic arguments do not win debates.  It's well-understood what is meant by "round" vs "flat" on these forums.

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 08:06:27 PM

I do not observe a flat earth.  If you zoom in on a tennis ball you will see a flat surface.  This is easily proven.  All you need to do is use the right instruments.  A trip down to a local college can provide you with the means to test this.  Thus, you cannot offer this as proof.

Thankfully your tennis ball experiment works as conceptual proof of concept for why I believe the Earth is flat.  If you zoom into a tennis ball enough, sure, it might look flat, but the direct sensorial evidence tells me that it is spherical.  I am sure you agree in this instance that the direct sensorial evidence supports the true shape of the tennis ball.  Why should I assume the Earth offers any other sort of result?

Why do you insist on having two arguments instead of one? 

" If you zoom into a tennis ball enough, sure, it might look flat, but the direct sensorial evidence tells me that it is spherical."

If it looks flat then your direct senses aren't telling you it's spherical.  Pick one.  Either your senses are telling you it's flat or they're telling you its spherical.  Pick one.

If you place a tiny object the size of 10 microns onto a tennis ball then the tennis ball is going to appear flat to that tiny object.  If that tiny object had senses then those senses would be telling that object that it was on a flat surface.  You yourself said you agree with this right before you then said you disagree.

And as for why I argue semantics, the title to this thread is called "Intelligence in Debate."  It matters that the proper terms are used.  It's spherical earth vs flat earth, not round vs flat because both are round.

And my original question still has not been answered.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on April 08, 2012, 08:54:02 PM

No, it is still direct sensorial evidence.  You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth.  You are directly observing that event.  That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round.  It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.

It is not. Or if it is, it is only in the same sense that one could say it is direct sensorial evidence of the world being an astronomically large turtle.

What?  How could it be evidence of a turtle?  I think you are being confused by the term round.  Even if it were a turtle, its evidence of it being a round turtle.  you can call the earth whatever you want, but it is direct sensorial evidence of curvature.

direct sensual evidence is not the best way to advance. much research would of halted if all people used was direct sensual evidence. claiming "devices that show that the earth round must be wrong because my eyes disagree" is not correct.
'it looks flat' just isnt good enough and thats all you can say

@ soulfien please provide evidence that the flat earth is round

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on April 08, 2012, 08:54:02 PM

No, it is still direct sensorial evidence.  You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth.  You are directly observing that event.  That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round.  It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.

It is not. Or if it is, it is only in the same sense that one could say it is direct sensorial evidence of the world being an astronomically large turtle.

By the same reasoning, seeing that your local area looks flat is not direct sensory evidence either.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.

What makes you believe that direct sensorial evidence is sufficient to determine the  correct shape of the earth?

It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round".  It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence.  Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.

And it takes conjecture to make the jump from "it looks sort of flat here in <insert place>" to "the Earth is flat".  It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence.

I have already provided proof and reference to the earth being spherical.  Proof?  I've served in the Navy for 8 and a half years.  I've been on 3 aircraft carriers.  I've been around the earth many times.  The circumference of the earth is under 25,000 miles, not 77,000 miles.  I've sailed the earth in both directions, not just one.  The Navy sails the world all the time and they have very accurate maps.  I've had the pleasure of meeting some sailors who had covered more of the earth than I had.  I can assure you, it's not flat.

And the reference?  Stephen Hawking and other brilliant astronomers and physicists.  They have applied math and science to exploring the nature of the universe in ways I can't even begin to understand.  What about Galileo?

Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of science", and "the Father of Modern Science".

Great minds who have provided endless proof to back up their claims that this is truly a fascinating 3-dimensional universe.  Evidence that you all say is incorrect yet have been unable to say how.


Photos and videos exist all over that show Antarctica as a continent, NOT a ring.  It exists as a very large island.  It's been explored, walked on, drilled for oil, fished from, and completely mapped out.

Not ONE photo exists that shows an "end of the world" barrier.  Not one.  Ever.  In a world where satellites, planes, and shuttles exist, why haven't we seen anything that proves your claim?  Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.   

direct sensual evidence is not the best way to advance. much research would of halted if all people used was direct sensual evidence. claiming "devices that show that the earth round must be wrong because my eyes disagree" is not correct.
'it looks flat' just isnt good enough and thats all you can say

@ soulfien please provide evidence that the flat earth is round

round
[round]   Example Sentences Origin
round
1    [round] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, preposition, verb
adjective
1. having a flat, circular surface, as a disk.
2. ring-shaped, as a hoop.
3. curved like part of a circle, as an outline.
4. having a circular cross section, as a cylinder; cylindrical.
5. spherical or globular, as a ball.

What do I win?

This is your map and as you can see, it's just as round as a sphere is...

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all

With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

• low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

That is nonsense. We've admitted as much scores of times. It is also true that the surface of a sufficiently large turtle might give this illusion; I find the turtle idea as laughable as your globe.

Ha! This is how most FE'ers feel. I appreciate the religious and mythological roots of Flat Earth thinking, but I agree. No one with a sound mind thinks elephants and turtles hold the world.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 06:58:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 08, 2012, 06:53:45 PM

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.

I look at the horizon: I see a sharp line. I don't see the coast of France, even through a powerful telescope. Direct sensorial evidence that France is not visible even though I know it lies in that direction. Direct sensorial evidence that France is not on a flat plane level with the UK. An observation that is not consistent with earth being a flat plane.
I look at the stars and note their positions. I look again later, and see they have moved in such a way that they appear to rotate around a point above the north pole. In the southern hemisphere I can do the same and see apparent rotation around the south pole. Direct sensorial evidence of rotation round two celestial poles. This perfectly fits the idea that the earth is a rotating three dimensional object. An observation that is not consistent with earth being a flat plane.
I go up in a high altitude aircraft or spacecraft and observe firsthand direct sensorial evidence of earth's curvature. An observation that is not consistent with earth being a flat plane.

And how does "FET" tackle these? It has to invoke made-up physics for the first one, it has no explanation at all for the second, and it resorts to accusing all accounts of the third as being lies, since zeteticism very handily includes the instruction to disbelieve any data gathered by anyone else.
That's quite useful for RE'ers, though, because it means we can dismiss Rowbotham's experiment results as a made-up account, just like FE'ers dismiss astronaut testimony. Do as you would be done by.

Quote from: Soulfien on April 09, 2012, 12:03:23 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all

With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

• low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

Insert the correct adjective.  My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical

Quote from: ClockTower on April 09, 2012, 12:12:27 AM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 09, 2012, 12:03:23 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all

With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

• low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

Insert the correct adjective.  My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical

U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? 

Quote from: Soulfien on April 09, 2012, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 09, 2012, 12:12:27 AM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 09, 2012, 12:03:23 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all

With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

• low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

Insert the correct adjective.  My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical

U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? 

You obviously haven't read this thread.  If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me.    See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me.  They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are.  You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.

In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please

Quote from: clayman on April 09, 2012, 07:36:42 AM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 09, 2012, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 09, 2012, 12:12:27 AM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 09, 2012, 12:03:23 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 08, 2012, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.

I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all

With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

• low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

Insert the correct adjective.  My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical

U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? 

You obviously haven't read this thread.  If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me.    See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me.  They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are.  You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.

In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please

You talk so much and still no proof. How so?