The burden of proof lies where?

  • 43 Replies
  • 7617 Views
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2013, 10:59:37 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.

These people however don't trust any scientific study not done by themselves. That way when proffesionals do the work they do not understand to prove RE they can just say he was mistaken or that something is done wrong, etc, etc. Although Round Earth is proven they say since it has not been proven to them specifically with all scientific experiments done infront of their faces they refuse to see the facts.

?

pax

  • 61
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2013, 12:13:48 AM »
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.

It's a bizarre combination of willful ignorance (practically no "round earther" has even a basic understanding of physics or post-highschool mathematics) and selective skepticism.

These people however don't trust any scientific study not done by themselves. That way when proffesionals do the work they do not understand to prove RE they can just say he was mistaken or that something is done wrong, etc, etc. Although Round Earth is proven they say since it has not been proven to them specifically with all scientific experiments done infront of their faces they refuse to see the facts.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2013, 08:50:31 AM »
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.

We do test our theories. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2013, 09:30:00 AM »
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.

We do test our theories. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Hmm, interesting. I like how he describes how to do the experiments, but doesn't show his results. He says his results, sure, but I thought zetetics were supposed to be skeptical. Y'all don't seem to want to take anyone at their word.

So while one flat-earther a hundred years ago might have done experiments, there is no reason to believe his results were the actual results.

There are, however, many experiments that can be done today to verify the shape of the Earth, not the least of which (and probably easiest) is "Measure a Mountain." Be sure to take pictures, and taking measurements on multiple days is probably best to avoid atmospheric distortion playing too big a role.

As for the Bedford Level experiment, or anything involving a short stretch of water and the camera low to the surface, that forms ideal conditions for refraction to make the light's path match the curvature of the Earth.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2013, 09:34:39 AM »
Round-earthers claim any number of fantastical ideas. We disagree with the majority of them because no proof is provided. Then we claim that the earth is flat, to which we supply many proofs. That's all that needs be known about the burden of proof.

Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2013, 09:46:47 AM »
Round-earthers claim any number of fantastical ideas. We disagree with the majority of them because no proof is provided. Then we claim that the earth is flat, to which we supply many proofs. That's all that needs be known about the burden of proof.

What do you mean no proof is provided for round-Earth? What about simple observations of the sun (such as that I have seen it rise and set at least 40 degrees farther south than any FE model predicts but perfectly coincides with what RE predicts)? Or simple observations of the stars (the constellation Crux will always be seen in the south--impossible for a model which requires the stars all rotate around the North Pole but explained by the RE model)? Or simple observations of mountains (whose apparent heights differ from FE model predictions the farther away these measurements are taken--exactly what is expected if the earth were round)?

The only 'proofs' I've seen of a flat Earth are 100-year-old experiments which are easily explained by simple refraction. The "Measure a Mountain" experiment operates on the exact same ideas as the Bedford Level, and completely disagree with a flat earth.

?

pax

  • 61
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2013, 04:17:09 PM »
Round-earthers claim any number of fantastical ideas. We disagree with the majority of them because no proof is provided. Then we claim that the earth is flat, to which we supply many proofs. That's all that needs be known about the burden of proof.

"We disagree with the majority of them because no proof is provided."
Are you part ostrich? The proof has been 1) well explained, even to (very) lay people who don't care to gain even a basic understanding of the hard sciences, 2) is absolutely omnipresent, 3) has withstood over a thousand years of incredibly rigorous study; studies which are properly conducted, cataloged, referenced, reviewed, and accepted.

The nature of the Earth's shape has been proven to a degree such that anyone who doubts it, must simultaneously believe in a sort of magic or have major cognitive dissonance problems.

?

Adolf Hipster

Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2013, 04:42:54 PM »
Round-earthers claim any number of fantastical ideas. We disagree with the majority of them because no proof is provided. Then we claim that the earth is flat, to which we supply many proofs. That's all that needs be known about the burden of proof.
Your claim that REers don't provide any proof is ridiculous.

I have yet to see a legitimate, irrefutable proof from a FEer; yet there are many threads by REers which point out a major flaw in FE that have gone unanswered for years.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 04:46:10 PM by Adolf Hipster »

?

therationalist56

  • 118
  • A Clueless Man
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2013, 07:03:09 PM »
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...

While I agree that certain debates warrant burden of proof of both sides (like in a courtroom or in a political debate), in science when challenging conventional and known facts that have existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof lies entirely with the side pushing the claim. In this context, the burden of proof lies entirely on the flat earthers since the notion of a round earth has been proved already by various aspects of science.

?

pax

  • 61
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2013, 07:36:48 PM »
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...

While I agree that certain debates warrant burden of proof of both sides (like in a courtroom or in a political debate), in science when challenging conventional and known facts that have existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof lies entirely with the side pushing the claim. In this context, the burden of proof lies entirely on the flat earthers since the notion of a round earth has been proved already by various aspects of science.

This, or more accurately, the burden of proof was on experimental data, which have already been fully vetted. Disproving something that has already been directly proven would require magic, which is precisely what round earth arguments hinge on.

?

therationalist56

  • 118
  • A Clueless Man
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2013, 08:05:04 PM »
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...

While I agree that certain debates warrant burden of proof of both sides (like in a courtroom or in a political debate), in science when challenging conventional and known facts that have existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof lies entirely with the side pushing the claim. In this context, the burden of proof lies entirely on the flat earthers since the notion of a round earth has been proved already by various aspects of science.

This, or more accurately, the burden of proof was on experimental data, which have already been fully vetted. Disproving something that has already been directly proven would require magic, which is precisely what round earth arguments hinge on.

I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that flat earth arguments hinge on magic as they are the ones who are attempting to disprove something which has been proven (and as such must provide the proof that their view is correct and the current view is incorrect)? Also I do not think you understand what burden of proof means as it cannot be on experimental data; the data itself is the proof. Burden of proof refers to whose job it is to provide proof which, as I've already stated, is the job of the people who have the dissenting opinion.

?

pax

  • 61
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2013, 11:34:08 PM »
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...

While I agree that certain debates warrant burden of proof of both sides (like in a courtroom or in a political debate), in science when challenging conventional and known facts that have existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof lies entirely with the side pushing the claim. In this context, the burden of proof lies entirely on the flat earthers since the notion of a round earth has been proved already by various aspects of science.

This, or more accurately, the burden of proof was on experimental data, which have already been fully vetted. Disproving something that has already been directly proven would require magic, which is precisely what round earth arguments hinge on.

I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that flat earth arguments hinge on magic as they are the ones who are attempting to disprove something which has been proven (and as such must provide the proof that their view is correct and the current view is incorrect)? Also I do not think you understand what burden of proof means as it cannot be on experimental data; the data itself is the proof. Burden of proof refers to whose job it is to provide proof which, as I've already stated, is the job of the people who have the dissenting opinion.

The first. I do understand burden of proof - the original burden of proof lie on those who make the initial hypothesis, clearly. As a round earth has been experimentally proven, the burden would shift to those who would discredit it - and as a round earth has been proven, any other conclusion would have to rely on something irrational i.e. magic.

?

therationalist56

  • 118
  • A Clueless Man
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2013, 11:17:31 AM »
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...

While I agree that certain debates warrant burden of proof of both sides (like in a courtroom or in a political debate), in science when challenging conventional and known facts that have existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof lies entirely with the side pushing the claim. In this context, the burden of proof lies entirely on the flat earthers since the notion of a round earth has been proved already by various aspects of science.

This, or more accurately, the burden of proof was on experimental data, which have already been fully vetted. Disproving something that has already been directly proven would require magic, which is precisely what round earth arguments hinge on.

I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that flat earth arguments hinge on magic as they are the ones who are attempting to disprove something which has been proven (and as such must provide the proof that their view is correct and the current view is incorrect)? Also I do not think you understand what burden of proof means as it cannot be on experimental data; the data itself is the proof. Burden of proof refers to whose job it is to provide proof which, as I've already stated, is the job of the people who have the dissenting opinion.

The first. I do understand burden of proof - the original burden of proof lie on those who make the initial hypothesis, clearly. As a round earth has been experimentally proven, the burden would shift to those who would discredit it - and as a round earth has been proven, any other conclusion would have to rely on something irrational i.e. magic.

Sounds good :) I didn't understand what you were saying. The burden of proof definitely goes onto the dissenters

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: The burden of proof lies where?
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2013, 05:14:34 PM »
Moved.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord