The burden of proof lies where?

Through reading many of the threads I often come upon FE'ers stating that the burden of proof lies with the Round Earth arguement. Using things like their side is more intuitive or it makes more sense or some such to support this claim.

I disagree. This is using a subjective claim to attempt to choose upon which side the burden of proof lies. To the Fe side it makes more sense and is intuitive and clearly the base which the other side should be held too. However it important to note that the exact opposite is true for the Re side. Which for them puts the burden of proof on the Fe side.

The burden of proof does not lie with either side. Since it is an debate with both sides trying to convince the other it means that each side has a burden of proof in their attempt to convince the other.
It should not be used as a crutch to get out of difficult questions as it has been used before.
If either side had the burden of proof it should be the Fe side since it is challenging the popular theory which is the more clearly known and understood and investigated.
I am however curious if people disagree with my conclusion on if one of the sides or both sides should have to carry the burden of proof in arguements.

Through reading many of the threads I often come upon FE'ers stating that the burden of proof lies with the Round Earth arguement. Using things like their side is more intuitive or it makes more sense or some such to support this claim.

I disagree. This is using a subjective claim to attempt to choose upon which side the burden of proof lies. To the Fe side it makes more sense and is intuitive and clearly the base which the other side should be held too. However it important to note that the exact opposite is true for the Re side. Which for them puts the burden of proof on the Fe side.

The burden of proof does not lie with either side. Since it is an debate with both sides trying to convince the other it means that each side has a burden of proof in their attempt to convince the other.
It should not be used as a crutch to get out of difficult questions as it has been used before.
If either side had the burden of proof it should be the Fe side since it is challenging the popular theory which is the more clearly known and understood and investigated.
I am however curious if people disagree with my conclusion on if one of the sides or both sides should have to carry the burden of proof in arguments.

I agree with you 100% I've been asking proof for a while now. I find it funny that any average Joe can get a balloon up in the air, take a flight/boat trip to Antarctica. There are thousands of scientist around the world, you think just one little thing would leak out but not a single thing(Except for false statements). Another ironic thing is that they use modern physics/biology witch is all based on RET, and they use it to prove the earth is flat. Sorry but things can't work the same in FET then as RET. I once asked someone for their research papers and he answered me back "It's so obvious the earth is flat, so I don't need any". And I guess images are not creditable(Even though RET wouldn't mind seeing some that are not photoshop) Heck the community has a lot of people right? Been here since the early 1900's, could of done a fund raiser to get the money to travel the earth and take images. You might also get responses like well why would you believe someone you don't know? Well I don't know you(FET guy), and you got even less evidence then the RET guy, but I should believe you because you sat on the side of the beach and realized the earth is flat?

The burden of proof lies with those that go against a flat earth.
After all..this is the "flat Earth society" forum, so if they come into it as an indoctrinated round earth believers, then they do so to try and disprove it, whilst also trying to hang onto their own indoctrinated theories.

That might be true if there were a single, coherent flat earth model that most FE'ers agreed upon.  However, pretty much every FE'er has their own bits and pieces of a flat earth model.  Where is the FE'er's burden to prove that their FE model is the correct FE model?

Quote from: markjo on June 28, 2013, 06:20:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2013, 03:53:27 AM

The burden of proof lies with those that go against a flat earth.
After all..this is the "flat Earth society" forum, so if they come into it as an indoctrinated round earth believers, then they do so to try and disprove it, whilst also trying to hang onto their own indoctrinated theories.

That might be true if there were a single, coherent flat earth model that most FE'ers agreed upon.  However, pretty much every FE'er has their own bits and pieces of a flat earth model.  Where is the FE'er's burden to prove that their FE model is the correct FE model?

I can only answer for myself.

So, what makes your flat earth model more correct than any one else's flat earth model?  Why should I believe you rather than Tom Bishop, John Davis, Ski, Sandokahn or any other FE'er?

You don't have to believe anyone.
That choice is entirely yours.

Obviously you believe that you are right.  So what makes you believe that your flat earth model is better than any one else's flat earth model?

I am however curious if people disagree with my conclusion on if one of the sides or both sides should have to carry the burden of proof in arguements.

I disagree. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

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?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: The Captain on June 25, 2013, 05:44:13 PM

I am however curious if people disagree with my conclusion on if one of the sides or both sides should have to carry the burden of proof in arguements.

I disagree. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

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?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the claimant.  This works both ways though.  Both RE and FE proponents alike have the burden.   You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.   It's also very difficult to prove something when said proof is constantly being written off as faked or indoctrinated as soon as it disagrees with the opposing theory. 

Quote from: The Captain on June 25, 2013, 05:44:13 PM

I am however curious if people disagree with my conclusion on if one of the sides or both sides should have to carry the burden of proof in arguements.

I disagree. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

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?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

Tom, as usual you seem to be ignoring or discounting the reams of evidence that exist for space flight. All the evidence you could want is freely available. Experiments can and have been done to verify things like the position of the ISS for example, and the results posted publicly by amateurs not connected with NASA.

However you do discount even the most compelling evidence, photographic evidence, merely by claiming it to be fake. Therefore the burden is on anyone to prove this evidence is fake. The technology exists to detect digital manipulation in photographs, so if they are fake please provide your evidence and stop trying to shift the burden.

Quote from: markjo on June 28, 2013, 08:06:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2013, 07:55:28 AM

You don't have to believe anyone.
That choice is entirely yours.

Obviously you believe that you are right.  So what makes you believe that your flat earth model is better than any one else's flat earth model?

Because it makes more sense to me...just as everyone else's makes more sense to them.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that your flat earth is more correct than anyone else's flat earth.  How do you prove who's flat earth is better?

Asking where the burden of proof lies in terms of this society is a false dichotomy more than anything. The burden of proof lies on both sides.

The difference however, is that the experimental and explanatory evidence offered by flat earther's for their fantastical and delusional claims is of such a low quality it is only convincing to the perpetuators, those whom already have a motivated reason to believe.

I haven't been on this forum long but Round Earther's are much more diligent in their evidence gathering and replies to debates. Time and time again it has been demonstrably shown that satellites do and must exist, men most definitely have been to the moon and that there is no doubt the curiosity rover is roaming mars right now (the fourth rover to do so).

Many forum posts are just left to drift away into the ever-increasing chasm of unanswered questions and refutations.

I'm yet to have received answers as to why a flat earth changes the: density, diameter, mass, absorption spectra, absolute brightness and volume of the sun (measurements that are completely incompatible with the FE model for the solar system).
I'm also yet to receive answers as to how the thousands of Gamma, X-ray and Infrared images have been synthesised without the existence of space telescopes when the earth's atmosphere is completely opaque to these sections of the EM spectrum. Along with a thorough explanation as to why there are discrepancies in local gravity measurements (that aren't measurement errors -.-).

And these are only MY own forum posts. There are a plethora of others...

Part of a quote from RyanTG
"Many forum posts are just left to drift away into the ever-increasing chasm of unanswered questions and refutations."

Just check through the lists and you will find countless examples of posts that were started, went on for a long time, were "de-railed" many times , or littered with countless off-topics and meaningless postings , and then were abandoned.

And just one example:
The best that Flat Earth has come up with as far as a "Flat Earth Map" seems to be just a plain ole' copy of a Polar Projection (that is all too obvious) of a globe with an Ice Ring drawn around it. How curious that they haven't come up with anything better or anything original ? Can't Flat Earth do anything better than that ? The awful truth is that the  answer is that they can't provide an accurate "Flat Earth Map" and that shoots a big hole in the whole Flat Earth notion.

Quote from: The Captain on June 25, 2013, 05:44:13 PM

I am however curious if people disagree with my conclusion on if one of the sides or both sides should have to carry the burden of proof in arguements.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

I agree completely! So when you claim the Earth is flat and I am skeptical the burden of proof is on you.

The same old song and dance I see.

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 28, 2013, 09:11:22 AM

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

Zetetism had nothing to do with skepticism. It is a philosophy that believes in experimentation to determine what is really the truth. As a Zetetic I believe not only what I see, but also overwhelming evidence what others have experienced. I am not a skeptic.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 28, 2013, 09:11:22 AM

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

As I recall, the infinite plane that you endorse is unobservable.

It can't be proven that the earth is an infinite plane.

I completely agree with Tom.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 28, 2013, 09:11:22 AM

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

I always thought a true zeteticism was a philosophy of a blank mind and only using evidence to answer a question instead of making an assumption.  The skepticism I've seen displayed here seems like a perverted form of zeteticism.  The best example is the belief in a mass conspiracy that has zero evidence besides the need for it to exist to protect FET.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2013, 07:09:21 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 28, 2013, 09:11:22 AM

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

Zetetism had nothing to do with skepticism. It is a philosophy that believes in experimentation to determine what is really the truth. As a Zetetic I believe not only what I see, but also overwhelming evidence what others have experienced. I am not a skeptic.

Your explanation of Zeticism does not contradict mine.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on June 30, 2013, 07:17:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2013, 07:09:21 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 28, 2013, 09:11:22 AM

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

Zetetism had nothing to do with skepticism. It is a philosophy that believes in experimentation to determine what is really the truth. As a Zetetic I believe not only what I see, but also overwhelming evidence what others have experienced. I am not a skeptic.

Your explanation of Zeticism does not contradict mine.

Tom can you message me your email? I want an autograph.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 28, 2013, 09:11:22 AM

You claim It's flat,  you have to prove it.   We claim it's round,  we have to prove it.

Zeteticiscm is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. Only one of those earth shapes is unobservable.

Unless you're claiming that you can see all of the Earth at one time you are agreeing that you share the burden of proof.

The real problem here is that people are willing to postulate and refer to other people's experiments without taking a whit of time to go out and do their own. It's been done, people: I have performed the basic experiment that was done 160 years ago and come up with the same exact results. Why don't you go and try for yourselves?

You people have had a lot of years of mass indoctrination, why should you believe anyone else right?
You couldn't wait to open your presents that were specially selected for you off of "Santa" when you were young and nobody but nobody was going to tell your "young" self that it was actually your parents that set them all out and bought them...because you and all other kids knew that "Santa" brought them down the chimney.
Obviously in later life, you found out that it was actually your parents, because the magical "fib" was tailor made for your excitement.
In later life...the mind needs more of a challenge to the Santa fable, so (depending on your interest) space exploits are born etc, to coincide with all the unproven fantasy sciences of gravity and huge sun distances, plus spinning earths.

Young adults and older adults can all be conditioned into accepting (in mass) an official line and can carry that throughout life and throughout their own family's minds.
So why did you become a carpenter...."well, my father was one and his father was too, so it's in my blood."

Ring a bell?

So you obviously don't believe in God right? Or for that matter not a single person on your side does. Because by now you've obviously realized that that's the biggest fib of them all. For that matter how do you know that you exist. Give me one solid piece of proof that I'm not the only person in the universe and you're a figment of my imagination. I've never seen you, so you don't exist. See how this works?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2013, 05:07:09 AM

You people have had a lot of years of mass indoctrination, why should you believe anyone else right?
You couldn't wait to open your presents that were specially selected for you off of "Santa" when you were young and nobody but nobody was going to tell your "young" self that it was actually your parents that set them all out and bought them...because you and all other kids knew that "Santa" brought them down the chimney.
Obviously in later life, you found out that it was actually your parents, because the magical "fib" was tailor made for your excitement.
In later life...the mind needs more of a challenge to the Santa fable, so (depending on your interest) space exploits are born etc, to coincide with all the unproven fantasy sciences of gravity and huge sun distances, plus spinning earths.

Young adults and older adults can all be conditioned into accepting (in mass) an official line and can carry that throughout life and throughout their own family's minds.
So why did you become a carpenter...."well, my father was one and his father was too, so it's in my blood."

Ring a bell?

So you obviously don't believe in God right? Or for that matter not a single person on your side does. Because by now you've obviously realized that that's the biggest fib of them all. For that matter how do you know that you exist. Give me one solid piece of proof that I'm not the only person in the universe and you're a figment of my imagination. I've never seen you, so you don't exist. See how this works?

I believe in God, and that the earth is flat. Proof that you're not the only person that exists, is that I think you're a jerk. It doesn't seem that you believe yourself to be jerk, so someone else does.

Proof that you're not the only person that exists, is that I think you're a jerk. It doesn't seem that you believe yourself to be jerk, so someone else does.

That's just the type of thing my brain would say to prove to itself it's not alone! Nice try, fake person. I'm onto your tricks.

Quote from: hoppy on July 15, 2013, 04:49:52 PM

Proof that you're not the only person that exists, is that I think you're a jerk. It doesn't seem that you believe yourself to be jerk, so someone else does.

That's just the type of thing my brain would say to prove to itself it's not alone! Nice try, fake person. I'm onto your tricks.

Well to be fair there zeteticism or whatever they call it by default means that they cannot believe in their own existance, free will, or the world, etc. Mostly because of Descartes (and other philosophers) failure to prove that we ourselves exist. Even if I think I have proven to myself that I exist (which I cannot) Then there is no evidence that anything outside of my own mind exists. Since no one can prove these things through experimentation they must therefore not believe in it.

In retrospect it's kind of hard to argue with someone who believes in the flat earth when by their own zetetictic (<no idea how to formulate that word properly) method they cannot even believe in their own existence.

Zeteticism is closer to true science than the 'science' Round Earth Theorists use. Skepticism is at the very heart of science.

Zeteticism is closer to true science than the 'science' Round Earth Theorists use. Skepticism is at the very heart of science.

Heeeeey, Tom Bishop lives! And yes, observing, theorizing, and testing are the cores of science.

Except ... Zeteticism doesn't appear to do the whole 'testing' thing. They stop at theories and call it a day. Modern science goes on to figure out if these theories are correct, create new ones, expand them, etc.

If we didn't test our theories, then we'd still believe in things like spontaneous generation.

Zeteticism is closer to true science than the 'science' Round Earth Theorists use. Skepticism is at the very heart of science.

If only you would apply the same level of skepticism to FET that you do to RET, then you would have a much stronger FET.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2013, 08:47:01 PM

Zeteticism is closer to true science than the 'science' Round Earth Theorists use. Skepticism is at the very heart of science.

If only you would apply the same level of skepticism to FET that you do to RET, then you would have a much stronger FET.

Except that the fact of a round earth has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny from the third century BC onward.