Science?

Why is it that many proponents of the FET only accept scientific data and theories from a select few scientists, often only using ones that don't discredit the FET?  For example, I doubt anyone on this site would not accept Newton's laws of motion (except Scepti), but in the same breath you completely disregard his law of universal gravitation. Or - you use Einstein's equivalence principle and special relativity while not accepting general relativity. Even more strange, you accept one man's view of the Earth while shunning hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who worked on the issue over the ages. This truly boggles my mind.

How does a proponent pick through scientific theories/laws?
Is it simply: this would not allow for a flat earth ... I deny it! Or something else?

First I will pick up on your argument that lots of scientists believe something, so it must be true.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

A fallacious argument. I'll give the example of religion. 200 years ago almost everyone believed in God. By your reasoning God is a fact because so many people believe in Him. However today if you so much as dare say "God did it" you will be jumped upon by hoards of frothy mouthed atheists. What the majority of people believe is neither here nor there. That will be more a product of folklore, social engineering and culture, than of hard facts.

As for picking which scientists and theories to believe, well its quite easy. We know the earth to be flat. From this point its very easy to say who is right and who is wrong. The overwhelming evidence is for a flat earth so if some scientist says "Earth is spinning at 60,000mph" we know that theory is bunk. It doesn't follow that when the same scientist says "Silver is a great conductor of electricity" that he must also be wrong about that.

I never made use of an appeal to population. What I did ask, however, was why the great majority of those scientists who worked on the shape of the Earth were ignored. You are correct in saying that "many scientists say the Earth is a sphere, so it is!" is fallible, but I did not say that.

As for picking which scientists and theories to believe, well its quite easy. We know the earth to be flat. From this point its very easy to say who is right and who is wrong. The overwhelming evidence is for a flat earth so if some scientist says "Earth is spinning at 60,000mph" we know that theory is bunk. It doesn't follow that when the same scientist says "Silver is a great conductor of electricity" that he must also be wrong about that.

Is this not fallible as well? You basically just stated that you knew the Earth's shape before even looking at any arguments for one. That's like me saying "I know God exists. Therefore it is easy to tell what is right from wrong. Look at all the evidence for a God! Any scientist who says there is no God is bunk." That argument gets you nowhere.

As far as evidence for a flat earth, you have one book that has not been peer reviewed. I can hardly call anything within it evidence. Any evidence for a spherical Earth is thrown away by the FES, or something is fabricated to make it look like it could work.

Many proponents of each theory concur on countless things. Water is wet. Fire is hot. Justin Bieber is annoying, etc.

Obviously, if evidence (for either a round or flat earth) is presented that simply goes against what one believes, obviously some exceptional proof is going to have to be presented to confirm it. If you want to claim that water isn't wet, fire isn't hot and that Justin Bieber isn't annoying, then you're going to have to present infallible, inexcusable and undeniable proof to change my mind.

I never made use of an appeal to population.

Yes you did.

Earth while shunning hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who worked on the issue over the ages. This truly boggles my mind.

You basically just stated that you knew the Earth's shape before even looking at any arguments for one.

No, I stated I knew the earth's shape without detailing all the scientific data that convinces me of this fact. That is very different and understandable being as I'm making a post, not a book, in response to your queries.

As far as evidence for a flat earth, you have one book that has not been peer reviewed.

No. We refer new people to that book because its free, on-line and very simple to understand. There are thousands of flat earth texts. One of our members compiled a list of the better ones, if you are interested.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,17760.0.html#.UXkwGiRwZbU

Many proponents of each theory concur on countless things. Water is wet. Fire is hot. Justin Bieber is annoying, etc.

Obviously, if evidence (for either a round or flat earth) is presented that simply goes against what one believes, obviously some exceptional proof is going to have to be presented to confirm it. If you want to claim that water isn't wet, fire isn't hot and that Justin Bieber isn't annoying, then you're going to have to present infallible, inexcusable and undeniable proof to change my mind.

The comparison to water is not fair, as you can perceive the entire sample of waters wetness.  The Earth is not the same case.  The other problem of course, is that the FES explains away the directly observed evidence of the Earth's shape with a conspiracy which has no evidence and is believed as an article of faith with some soft rationalization behind it.

The principle remains the same. If you could infallibly convince a flat earth proponent of the earths rotundity, then you would. The only explanations that remain are either you have yet to offer such infallible evidence, or that flat earth proponents are in denial. I am sure many would suggest the former.

I used water as an example of something both parties agree upon. Possibly because, as you suggest, you can perceive water in it's entirety. It is easier to prove, and that is why proof is so infallible and why everyone agrees. Ultimately, to convince somebody of the Earth's shape against what they believe, you're going to have to try harder as it is much harder to prove. I do not begin to suggest that this is an easy feat, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

If the shape of the earth and everything that goes with it, could be proved beyond any doubt of it's spherical rotating nature, then sites like this would not exist.
The fact that it does exist means that the proof is by word alone and not by direct experiment of any kind, except silly ones that supposedly portray it as being a rotating sphere.

If we all went by simple logic and using our own built in sensors, I think the majority of people would realise it's flat, yet for them to do that, they would need to blank canvas their minds from the mainstream view they have held on to all their life.

There are websites about everything and anything, regardless of the level of truth.

Also, are you implying that in order to determine the shape or the Earth you must first remove any previous notion of the laws of physics? We already invented the wheel, let's not force everyone to.

Sceptimatic takes the stance that we should all clear our minds of accepting mainstream truths, simply because we are told they are true, but hypocritically assumes that his own stance is correct, simply because he believes it to be true. Furthermore he thinks everyone should accept his view.

Evidently from discussion, Sceptimatic, many do not "realise it is flat", despite "clearing their minds" and making their own conclusions. Their stance is as completely valid as your own. You will have to present evidence (just as they will for you) of sufficient quality and infallibility to change a belief that independent observation, study and research has founded.

I have read what you posted again, as you suggested, but still hold to what I said. In this very thread you state: "except silly ones that supposedly portray it as being a rotating sphere." Are you not silly for holding onto your belief in a flat Earth, just as much as anyone else that believes in a round Earth, or any other Earth model? Where no infallible evidence exists thus far to demonstrate conclusively the truth, is it not an arrogant and hypocritical statement to suggest your own position is superior, or that another position is lower or 'silly'?

Perhaps I am reading too deeply between the lines. Perhaps you need to re-examine how you present your stance.

clear your mind of what's been drilled into it and make a view based on what you perceive, not what you are schooled to believe.

Ok it's cleared. Hmm the earth LOOKS flat, and don't feel any wind, so we can't be rotating, etc.

What's that you say? Other human beings have knowledge I don't?........ I want some. So now I get to choose between thousands upon thousands upon thousands of articles of research from most of the human population, or a dozen books and one website. Hmm, i'll dabble in both to be fair.

Ok all of these observations and research are making sense, large earth so it looks flat, relativity so we feel stationary, gravity, physics, astronomy, fundamentals of knowledge... WOW starting from basic first person observations and BUILDING on top of that, while pondering and experimenting through the process, everything makes sense, I understand it all, and I now I have knowledge.

I'll check out that website now............................................................................. what the hell did I just read?

Well, would you look at that, the earth is still round.