How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy?

I never said it didn't.

My point was a lot of FEers reject gravity, replace it with UA and then still appeal to gravity in the form of celestial gravity.

So it isn't a strawman.

The only part that comes close is the ending where they say they can't use it as it would make Earth a sphere.

I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve?

So you are asking for a mechanism for the mechanism.

Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.

And that doesn't make it irrational.

It is still a form of reasoning, and thus something being backed up by it is still rational.

It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.

No, you have it the wrong way around.

It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is irrational.

You are yet to provide any justification for that.

You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult.

Good job projecting.

A rational conclusion

Again, I said a rational assumption, not conclusion.

is one based off deductive logic.

No, that would be a deductive conclusion.

There is nothing in the definition of rational which requires it to use deductive reasoning.

One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression.

Again, care to provide a proof that deductive reasoning works, without the same infinite regress?

Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?

Because that is circular reasoning.

You are assuming deductive logic works to try and prove deductive logic works.

That is no better than using inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning works.

So do you have any proof that deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

Quite the double standard you have.

You reject justifying inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning but are happy to do so for deductive reasoning.

Why?

It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.

No, you have just asserted it and tried to equate rational to based upon deductive reasoning.

And now you are begging the question.

Not in the slightest.

I am merely pointing out that if you honest followed what you preached you would accept nothing as proven and know that nothing can be proven (including that nothing can be proven), and as such wouldn't even bring it up as a point in an argument.

No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons?

Yes I have.

How are photons generated?

A nice simple case of an electron being moved from point A to point B, just once.

How does in generate photons to affect the electromagnetic field?

What is the mechanism behind it?

How does this photon then cause other charges to move?

Again, the same, or equivalent, questions apply to the other fundamental forces as well.

They are known well enough

The ones where they are just anomolies from a simple model based upon incomplete information rather than a contradiction of the model are well known.

For example, a variation in the gravity of Earth from what is predicted from a simple ellipsoid.

But you made it clear that is not what you were talking about.

The only thing which comes close to that is galactic rotation curves, but you said it was here on Earth, so that rules that out.

So just what anomalies are you talking about?

Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue

That is vastly different to an alleged gravitational anomaly.

Everyone can go outside on a near daily basis and observe that the sky appears to be blue.

They cannot do this for gravitational anomalies.

It would be more akin to citing that the average distance between the sun and Earth is a particular value.

I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly" if that is what you are harping on.

So you didn't even bother reading past the first line?

Typically the model is based on simplifying assumptions, such as that, under its self-gravitation and rotational motion, the planet assumes the figure of an ellipsoid of revolution. Gravity on the surface of this ellipsoid is then given by a simple formula which only contains the latitude, and subtraction from observed gravity in the same location will yield the gravity anomaly.

So just like I said, a variation from a simple model with no indication it lies outside the uncertainty range as it does not include the distribution of all the mass in the object.

If you have an example of an actual gravitational anomaly on Earth, where the prediction of gravity is actually wrong, rather than a simplified prediction being wrong, feel free to provide it.

Until then I see no reason to foolishly accept it.

No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.

Again, any justification?

Or is this again just focusing on the simplifications of the model?