The burden of proof.

  • 27 Replies
  • 3012 Views
The burden of proof.
« on: July 19, 2014, 06:19:46 PM »
I thought I'd make another thread. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this so please feel free to move it. ;)

Your Wiki seems to state people who think the earth is round have a higher burden of proof than the FEer.
"You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon..."

I think that is a stretch. Round Earthers claim the earth is round. Flat Earthers claim the earth is flat. Sending rockets to space is a way to prove the earth is a sphere.

"The Burden of Proof" is usually cited when arguing about God or Creationism. Now those are extraordinary claims.

Imagine a brand new thread.

RE. The earth is a sphere.
FE. Nope, flat as a pancake.
RE. No, really! The earth is a sphere. Look at this picture from a rocket.
FE. Nope! That's not a picture from a rocket.
RE. So, you really think the earth is flat?
FE. Yep. Here is a something something something proof of Flat earth.


So. You might be able to say pictures from rockets are more an extraordinary claim than whatever proof FEers provide. But the claims themselves are both similar in the level of evidence needed to verify.

*

Moosedrool

  • 342
  • Ice Wall Guardian
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2014, 08:09:21 PM »
Problem is there is proof the earth is a globe.

Photos from space
Star constellations
The sun actually setting
Noctilucent clouds
Travel times working within the spheroid map
Coriolis effect
Foucault pendulums
Lunar eclipse
Objects disappearing bottom first when reaching the horizon.
The star constellations including Octans due south everywhere in the southern hemisphere.
Eratosthenes stick shadow experiment.
Cavendish experiment proving the existence of gravity.
Observing other celestial bodies.
GPS.
Tides caused by lunar gravity.
Digital satellite television.
Aircraft navigation.
Ship Navigation.
Expeditions to Antarctica including weather stations.
The existence of earths magnetic field.
Tectonic plate movement and how it effects the landscape.

And not a single piece of evidence that it is flat.
I'm not trying to disprove gravity. I've succeeded in disproving it. It's called denpressure.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2014, 03:09:23 AM »
Sending rockets to space is a way to prove the earth is a sphere.
[...]
So. You might be able to say pictures from rockets are more an extraordinary claim than whatever proof FEers provide. But the claims themselves are both similar in the level of evidence needed to verify.

I can tell you in advance that the flat earthers will claim that.....

All the Apollo moon missions footage was staged in an old WWII aircraft hanger in Area 51.
The 12 astronauts who "allegedly" stepped onto the moon were all professional actors paid millions of dollars to take the secret to their graves.
The 40,000 technicians from a dozen countries that worked on the missions were duped into thinking they were working on the real thing, rather than a mockup.
Only half a dozen people at the very top of NASA's hierarchy knew what was "really" going on.
The moon is only a flat disc 3,000 miles above the earth, or is a reflection inside the sky "dome".
Jet engines are incapable of propelling a manned capsule to the moon, and the launch footage shows only models of the rockets.
The Van Allen radiation belts would kill any human that passed through them in a space capsule without a foot of lead protection.
Any photographic image "allegedly" taken from a manned capsule will be Photoshopped.
All images captured at any great distance form the earth's horizon will show it curved due to every camera lens producing barrel distortion.
The ISS doesn't exist in reality, and is just a model keyed out in a film studio against a background of stars and planets, and the moon.

—Flip a coin and wait for one or more of these responses LOL.



*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2014, 01:13:16 PM »
For an unbiased observer, the Earth is seems flats upon being observed.
To say otherwise, ie the Earth is a Globe, requires evidence. Evidence  that globularists are lacking.
The burden of proof is on REers.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

sokarul

  • 18781
  • Extra Racist
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2014, 01:25:12 PM »
For an unbiased observer, the Earth is seems flats upon being observed.
To say otherwise, ie the Earth is a Globe, requires evidence. Evidence  that globularists are lacking.
The burden of proof is on REers.
Problem is there is proof the earth is a globe.

Photos from space
Star constellations
The sun actually setting
Noctilucent clouds
Travel times working within the spheroid map
Coriolis effect
Foucault pendulums
Lunar eclipse
Objects disappearing bottom first when reaching the horizon.
The star constellations including Octans due south everywhere in the southern hemisphere.
Eratosthenes stick shadow experiment.
Cavendish experiment proving the existence of gravity.
Observing other celestial bodies.
GPS.
Tides caused by lunar gravity.
Digital satellite television.
Aircraft navigation.
Ship Navigation.
Expeditions to Antarctica including weather stations.
The existence of earths magnetic field.
Tectonic plate movement and how it effects the landscape.

And not a single piece of evidence that it is flat.

Doesn't look lacking to me.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2014, 04:02:29 PM »
For an unbiased observer, the Earth is seems flats upon being observed.
To say otherwise, ie the Earth is a Globe, requires evidence. Evidence  that globularists are lacking.
The burden of proof is on REers.
Problem is there is proof the earth is a globe.

Photos from space
Star constellations
The sun actually setting
Noctilucent clouds
Travel times working within the spheroid map
Coriolis effect
Foucault pendulums
Lunar eclipse
Objects disappearing bottom first when reaching the horizon.
The star constellations including Octans due south everywhere in the southern hemisphere.
Eratosthenes stick shadow experiment.
Cavendish experiment proving the existence of gravity.
Observing other celestial bodies.
GPS.
Tides caused by lunar gravity.
Digital satellite television.
Aircraft navigation.
Ship Navigation.
Expeditions to Antarctica including weather stations.
The existence of earths magnetic field.
Tectonic plate movement and how it effects the landscape.

And not a single piece of evidence that it is flat.

Doesn't look lacking to me.

Now ! Where is the proof and evidence from the flat earth side ? It looks like it is tad bit lacking to me ?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 08:37:17 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2014, 08:22:50 PM »
For an unbiased observer, the Earth is seems flats upon being observed.


Oh dear... the old "look out your window" argument LOL.

—I really thought this silly notion was long dead and buried.  Obviously not for some flat earth diehards.


?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2014, 08:35:09 PM »
For an unbiased observer, the Earth is seems flats upon being observed.


Oh dear... the old "look out your window" argument LOL.

—I really thought this silly notion was long dead and buried.  Obviously not for some flat earth diehards.

I wonder if , "for an unbiased observer", if the earth would "seem flat upon being observed" if they went to sea and observed the "sinking ship" or "sinking land" notion ?....I really thought that silly notion was long dead and buried, too ?

The "look out your window" argument seems to be the only "evidence" which flat earth diehards have ever presented ?
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2014, 09:58:01 PM »

I wonder if, "for an unbiased observer", if the earth would "seem flat upon being observed" if they went to sea and observed the "sinking ship" or "sinking land" notion ?....I really thought that silly notion was long dead and buried, too?

The "look out your window" argument seems to be the only "evidence" which flat earth diehards have ever presented ?

On this site, "unbiased observer" = "flat earther".

And "round earther" = "totally biased observer".

     ;D


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2014, 06:54:00 AM »
Any person that comes to a flat Earth forum to try and disprove a flat Earth and to champion a globe...the burden of proof is on you lot to prove your claims.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2014, 07:01:15 AM »
Any person that comes to a flat Earth forum to try and disprove a flat Earth and to champion a globe...the burden of proof is on you lot to prove your claims.

Your understanding of logic is as flawed as your "understanding" of science sceptimatic.  Sorry.

The current scientific status quo is the spherical earth model.  Therefore the alternate hypothesis is yours to prove.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2014, 07:31:55 AM »
Any person that comes to a flat Earth forum to try and disprove a flat Earth and to champion a globe...the burden of proof is on you lot to prove your claims.

Your understanding of logic is as flawed as your "understanding" of science sceptimatic.  Sorry.

The current scientific status quo is the spherical earth model.  Therefore the alternate hypothesis is yours to prove.
Nope. Mass opinion does not give anyone the right to shift the onus, especially when you are a guest on a flat Earth site.

If a flat Earth theorist came to a global Earth site, the the burden of proof would be on them to prove a flat Earth.
The burden of proof is on you to either prove your globe or disprove the flat Earth. You have done neither and neither has anyone else. Many have tried and many have made claims. None have succeeded. If they had, then this site would no longer exist. It does and has done for long enough and will continue to do so, because the simple facts of the matter are...you cannot disprove the flat Earth theory to be wrong whilst also not being able to prove your oblate sphereoid.

Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2014, 07:38:22 AM »
There is no burden of proof. Each side is describing the same thing has a different shape.

It does seem like FEer is never offering proof, only discounting REer's offered proof. I'd love to see Flat Earth creation theory.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2014, 07:40:45 AM »
Any person that comes to a flat Earth forum to try and disprove a flat Earth and to champion a globe...the burden of proof is on you lot to prove your claims.

Your understanding of logic is as flawed as your "understanding" of science sceptimatic.  Sorry.

The current scientific status quo is the spherical earth model.  Therefore the alternate hypothesis is yours to prove.
Nope. Mass opinion does not give anyone the right to shift the onus, especially when you are a guest on a flat Earth site.

If a flat Earth theorist came to a global Earth site, the the burden of proof would be on them to prove a flat Earth.
The burden of proof is on you to either prove your globe or disprove the flat Earth. You have done neither and neither has anyone else. Many have tried and many have made claims. None have succeeded. If they had, then this site would no longer exist. It does and has done for long enough and will continue to do so, because the simple facts of the matter are...you cannot disprove the flat Earth theory to be wrong whilst also not being able to prove your oblate sphereoid.
Well, seeing as your entire argument about anything is "That is total garbage", the burden lies upon you.  There are many different pieces of evidence showing that the flat earth is wrong and the round earth is correct.  You just are so indoctrinated by your own "theories" that you can't see that you are way off your mark.

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2014, 04:41:12 PM »
I think the burden of proof very obviously lies on the round earther. This is because, epistemically, the burden of proof rests on whoever is asserting some position. The flat earth model, even if untrue (it isn't), is nevertheless more immediate to the senses, hence why primitive peoples came to intuitively propose the flat earth model. To anyone who walks outside and sees a (seemingly) infinite plain, the flat earth model is an instinctive account of the geometry of our world. Therefore the burden of proof resides in the round-earther, to prove a proposition which at first glance I would deny (and do deny).

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2014, 05:36:11 PM »
I think the burden of proof very obviously lies on the round earther. This is because, epistemically, the burden of proof rests on whoever is asserting some position. The flat earth model, even if untrue (it isn't), is nevertheless more immediate to the senses, hence why primitive peoples came to intuitively propose the flat earth model. To anyone who walks outside and sees a (seemingly) infinite plain, the flat earth model is an instinctive account of the geometry of our world. Therefore the burden of proof resides in the round-earther, to prove a proposition which at first glance I would deny (and do deny).
Yes, and as you can see by many posts on this forum, of many different topics, the round earther supports his claims with evidence.  Which is dismissed as being faked, or doctrine, without any supporting evidence.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41940
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2014, 05:38:56 PM »
Personally, I think that the question of who has the greater burden of proof is, for the most part, irrelevant.  Anyone who makes a claim for either position bears a burden to support that claim with evidence.  The more relevant question should be "what evidence will satisfy that burden?"
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2014, 06:05:52 PM »
Personally, I think that the question of who has the greater burden of proof is, for the most part, irrelevant.  Anyone who makes a claim for either position bears a burden to support that claim with evidence.  The more relevant question should be "what evidence will satisfy that burden?"
And that is the opponent of the claims job.  Not just to dismiss the evidence but explain why the evidence does not support the claim.  The opponent of the claim can't just say "it is obviously fake, anyone with half a brain can see why"  They need to explain why, then they have the burden to support their claim about the evidence.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5369
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2014, 07:13:22 PM »
For once, I find myself agreeing with Markjo.  What is this strange feeling?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2014, 08:26:59 PM »
For once, I find myself agreeing with Markjo.  What is this strange feeling?

Likewise. But what is the reason for this strange feeling about belief in a so-called "Flat Earth" ?
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Arctangent

  • 226
  • Flat Earth researcher
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2014, 08:57:49 AM »
I think the burden of proof very obviously lies on the round earther. This is because, epistemically, the burden of proof rests on whoever is asserting some position. The flat earth model, even if untrue (it isn't), is nevertheless more immediate to the senses, hence why primitive peoples came to intuitively propose the flat earth model. To anyone who walks outside and sees a (seemingly) infinite plain, the flat earth model is an instinctive account of the geometry of our world. Therefore the burden of proof resides in the round-earther, to prove a proposition which at first glance I would deny (and do deny).
Yes, and as you can see by many posts on this forum, of many different topics, the round earther supports his claims with evidence.  Which is dismissed as being faked, or doctrine, without any supporting evidence.

Well, I think the intuitive nature of the flat earth hypothesis is the source of denial. For instance, if you were to tell me that my living room floor is lava tinted to look like wood, then I would not believe you based on the intuition that it is wood. No amount of contrary evidence (such as measuring its chemical composition with scientific instruments, or tinting other wood to show the consistency of your theory) will convince me it is in fact lava. This is because my senses uniformly and compellingly tell me otherwise, and indirect evidence will not cut it. The way I will be convinced my living room floor is lava is by directly feeling the lava (ouch), and the way I will be convinced that the Earth is round is by directly viewing the Earth as a sphere from space. In other words, if I come to some conclusion directly from my senses, then I will only be convinced by evidence that also comes directly from my senses.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 09:00:21 AM by Arctangent »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2014, 10:18:25 AM »
...In other words, if I come to some conclusion directly from my senses, then I will only be convinced by evidence that also comes directly from my senses.


Are you positive... you do rely directly and totally on what your "senses" are telling you?  No experimentation necessary?

If I stand you in front of the induction hotplate in my kitchen, and ask you to quickly lay your hand on the glass element, would you do so because it's not glowing red hot like a "conventional" stove top?  What would your senses tell you?  Nothing.  They don't tell you whether or not it's switched on.

So... you then carry out one of two experiments to fill in the one gap—touch—in your senses (sight, hearing, smell, and taste).  [1] You hold your hand close to the glass to detect any possible heat, but do not touch it.  [2] Or you check the control panel to see if the switch is turned to 200ºC.

This clearly indicates that one of your senses (touch, in my example) is deficient.  If you'd relied on your sense of touch, you'd now be suffering 3rd-degree burns to your hand.

And this little exercise can be extrapolated to all the other senses you apparently rely upon to survive.




*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41940
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2014, 11:06:55 AM »
Well, I think the intuitive nature of the flat earth hypothesis is the source of denial. For instance, if you were to tell me that my living room floor is lava tinted to look like wood, then I would not believe you based on the intuition that it is wood. No amount of contrary evidence (such as measuring its chemical composition with scientific instruments, or tinting other wood to show the consistency of your theory) will convince me it is in fact lava. This is because my senses uniformly and compellingly tell me otherwise, and indirect evidence will not cut it. The way I will be convinced my living room floor is lava is by directly feeling the lava (ouch), and the way I will be convinced that the Earth is round is by directly viewing the Earth as a sphere from space. In other words, if I come to some conclusion directly from my senses, then I will only be convinced by evidence that also comes directly from my senses.
Intuition?  I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2014, 03:20:07 PM »

Intuition?  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I can only agree markjo.

Arctangent begins by saying "Well, I think the intuitive nature of the flat earth hypothesis is the source of denial".

Intuitively, the geometry of the planet is not made clear.  Arctangent falls for the logical fallacy that because it looks flat from his window, it IS flat.  Again, he puts too much significance of fallible human senses.  This time it's eyesight.  A dolphin "looks" like a fish, but it's not.  A 240V active power lead "looks" identical to an earthed wire, but it's not.  At first glance, a full moon "looks" like a flat disc, but it's not.

In fact, if we watch the progress of the sun during the day from different vantage points on the planet, and observe the monthly cycles of the moon and tides, then "intuition" leads us to the belief that the earth could possibly be spherical.  Scientific observations then prove this simple intuition to be correct.  Arctangent has no such scientific observations to either prove or disprove his intuition.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2014, 03:35:40 PM »
Intuitiveness is a learned thing.  Just because something is intuitive to you, that does not mean that someone who was brought up under different circumstances would find it to be intuitive as well. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2014, 03:38:15 PM »
Intuitiveness is a learned thing.  Just because something is intuitive to you, that does not mean that someone who was brought up under different circumstances would find it to be intuitive as well.

This is true, but we do happen to agree about what is and what is not intuitive about lots of things and this is most probably because we share a lot of the same experiences since we live on the same planet and we're all human beings.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2014, 03:43:34 PM »
Lots of people, for example, say that Linux is not intuitive.  I disagree, because those people were brought up using Windoze.  Had they been brought up using Linux, then it would feel intuitive to them. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41940
Re: The burden of proof.
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 04:49:50 PM »
I think that some people tend to confuse intuitive with instinctive.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.