The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: InquisitiveREer on January 19, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
-
So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:
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?
I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.
-
So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:
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?
I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.
I don't know how this particular forum does things, but this is how I usually structure debate:
1 ) First person makes a claim. They may present evidence from the outset or bit by bit as the first person is plied with questions.
2 ) Second person rebuts the first claim, either by questioning the reasoning, or scrutinizing the evidence, or a combination of the two.
3 ) First person raises objections to the second person's rebuttal in an attempt to either clear up confusion or indicate to the second person why their reasoning is poor.
4 ) Both may then hash out any discrepancies or disagreements and either come to a consensus or agree to disagree.
You can get stuck in steps 3 and 4 ad nauseum, but that's why I stick to a rule of thumb like, "If two people have an argument for more than five minutes, they're both wrong." But I'm just spitballing.
-
So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:
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?
I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.
I don't know how this particular forum does things, but this is how I usually structure debate:
1 ) First person makes a claim. They may present evidence from the outset or bit by bit as the first person is plied with questions.
2 ) Second person rebuts the first claim, either by questioning the reasoning, or scrutinizing the evidence, or a combination of the two.
3 ) First person raises objections to the second person's rebuttal in an attempt to either clear up confusion or indicate to the second person why their reasoning is poor.
4 ) Both may then hash out any discrepancies or disagreements and either come to a consensus or agree to disagree.
You can get stuck in steps 3 and 4 ad nauseum, but that's why I stick to a rule of thumb like, "If two people have an argument for more than five minutes, they're both wrong." But I'm just spitballing.
This is somewhat fine for a simpler yes/no question. Like what is covered by most debate clubs. But for something more complex (flat vs round isn't really two sides of the same coin, and neither side is a negative) BOTH should be presenting evidence at first. Then you dissect and attempt to discredit the evidence of the other, followed by rebuttals of the dissection. Unfortunately FE usually boils down to 'Well, it *looks* flat' at the core of why. Which, one can't really argue with directly. Because yeah, it rather does look flat. They must be willing to look beyond that without being biased by this original observation in order to start to understand why the Earth is like a book. Instead we have a whole host of things (many unobserved elsewhere or misunderstood) that are created to accommodate this 'obvious truth' of the Earth being flat. Also why debates generally have a moderator of some form. You aren't attempting to convince the other, you are attempting to convince the presumably neutral third party. The undecided.
-
Thank you both for your insight on this subject i was simply confused by how there wiki presented who should or should not be providing more evidence this clears it up
Again thanks
-
See also: One of the previous burden of proof threads. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7009) This topic gets retread quite a bit.
-
So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:
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?
I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.
I believe that you are cutting things slightly out of context. What immediately follows from that sentence is the example on the debate on the existence of ghosts. One side is claiming that ghosts exists, and the other one is claiming that ghosts do not exist. The most easily observable claim is that, of course, ghosts do not exist. So who holds the burden of proof?
Once you assert that it is clearly the people claiming the existence of ghosts who need to demonstrate that they exist, and not on the skeptic to demonstrate that they do not exist, the logical progression will show that the burden of proof is on anyone claiming to look at the world and see that it is round.
-
With that example on ghosts while yes in that scenario it is instinctively put on the one who says ghosts don't exist when the person claiming the exist provides evidence the person claiming they don't then would naturally respond with there own evidence thus both sides provide evidence.
-
With that example on ghosts while yes in that scenario it is instinctively put on the one who says ghosts don't exist when the person claiming the exist provides evidence the person claiming they don't then would naturally respond with there own evidence thus both sides provide evidence.
The side claiming that ghosts do not exist need only to look around and say "I don't see any ghosts," and thus the evidence for their non-existence has been provided. This is why the burden of proof is primarily on the people claiming that ghosts do exist.
Similarly, Flat Earthers need only to look at the world and say that it looks flat, and thus evidence for the flatness of the world has been provided. The burden of proof is primarily on the people who look at the world and claim that they see it to be round.
In both examples above our empirical experiences have already decided the matter. It is those experiences which must be contradicted.
-
With that example on ghosts while yes in that scenario it is instinctively put on the one who says ghosts don't exist when the person claiming the exist provides evidence the person claiming they don't then would naturally respond with there own evidence thus both sides provide evidence.
The side claiming that ghosts do not exist need only to look around and say "I don't see any ghosts," and thus the evidence for their non-existence has been provided. This is why the burden of proof is primarily on the people claiming that ghosts do exist.
Similarly, Flat Earthers need only to look at the world and say that it looks flat, and thus evidence for the flatness of the world has been provided. The burden of proof is primarily on the people who look at the world and claim that they see it to be round.
Hmm. But isn't that like me saying "I don't believe in kangaroos, I have never seen any kangaroos".
I could then say that the burden of proof lies with people who claim they do exist.
The difference between kangaroos and ghosts of course is it would be quite easy for people to show me photographs and film of kangaroos and probably arrange a visit for me to see one - in my part of the world that would be in a zoo. The burden of proof would then lie with me to show that all this evidence is wrong.
To relate this to FE/RE I think it's fairly reasonable for someone to look out to sea, observe a flat horizon and conclude the earth is flat unless demonstrated otherwise.
The RE response though would be "look at all these photos/film of the earth from space and the testimony of all the people who claim to have been to space, look at these photos which show distant buildings occluded by the curve of the earth, look at all these observations which fit models of a spherical earth...etc etc".
The burden of proof then lies with FE to demonstrate that all this evidence is wrong/fake and that a flat earth model can explain all these observations, no?
-
With that example on ghosts while yes in that scenario it is instinctively put on the one who says ghosts don't exist when the person claiming the exist provides evidence the person claiming they don't then would naturally respond with there own evidence thus both sides provide evidence.
The side claiming that ghosts do not exist need only to look around and say "I don't see any ghosts," and thus the evidence for their non-existence has been provided. This is why the burden of proof is primarily on the people claiming that ghosts do exist.
Similarly, Flat Earthers need only to look at the world and say that it looks flat, and thus evidence for the flatness of the world has been provided. The burden of proof is primarily on the people who look at the world and claim that they see it to be round.
In both examples above our empirical experiences have already decided the matter. It is those experiences which must be contradicted.
The proof is the path of the sun and measured distances. You agreed that timeanddate.com is correct, so do the maths to determine the size and shape of the earth. You also understand how satellite tv dish alignment also proves the shape of the earth.
-
the burden of proof is always on the claimant. it doesn't matter what the claim is.
-
Hmm. But isn't that like me saying "I don't believe in kangaroos, I have never seen any kangaroos".
Of course, why wouldn't it be? I have never seen a kangaroo personally, but that doesn't mean you can't provide solid evidence that they exist. As the one making the claim that they exist why wouldn't the burden be on you to prove it? That you can do so quite easily in this particular instance is no refutation of Tom's point.
-
Hmm. But isn't that like me saying "I don't believe in kangaroos, I have never seen any kangaroos".
Of course, why wouldn't it be? I have never seen a kangaroo personally, but that doesn't mean you can't provide solid evidence that they exist. As the one making the claim that they exist why wouldn't the burden be on you to prove it? That you can do so quite easily in this particular instance is no refutation of Tom's point.
Well, I guess the point is the existence of kangaroos is not particularly controversial. If I claimed that they didn't exist then why isn't the burden of proof of the "great kangaroo conspiracy" on me? I'm the one making the crazy claim. Obviously "crazy" is subjective but I think it would be a pretty crazy claim that an entire species which there are numerous photos and videos of and which many people have seen in the flesh doesn't actually exist.
The RE model has been accepted for thousands of years, long before the space race. Photos and video from space and the claims of people who say they have travelled into orbit do reinforce what we've already known for centuries about the shape of the earth but they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. If people are coming along and saying that thousands of years of science is wrong, that all the photos and video from numerous space agencies are fake and all the people involved are lying then I'd suggest that is the more fantastic claim which has the burden of proof on it.
-
Hmm. But isn't that like me saying "I don't believe in kangaroos, I have never seen any kangaroos".
Of course, why wouldn't it be? I have never seen a kangaroo personally, but that doesn't mean you can't provide solid evidence that they exist. As the one making the claim that they exist why wouldn't the burden be on you to prove it? That you can do so quite easily in this particular instance is no refutation of Tom's point.
Well, I guess the point is the existence of kangaroos is not particularly controversial. If I claimed that they didn't exist then why isn't the burden of proof of the "great kangaroo conspiracy" on me? I'm the one making the crazy claim. Obviously "crazy" is subjective but I think it would be a pretty crazy claim that an entire species which there are numerous photos and videos of and which many people have seen in the flesh doesn't actually exist.
Again, the burden is on you. That it's easy to prove means nothing; you are making a positive claim (kangaroos exist), therefore if for some reason their existence were up for debate you would be the one who needs to prove his claim.
The RE model has been accepted for thousands of years, long before the space race. Photos and video from space and the claims of people who say they have travelled into orbit do reinforce what we've already known for centuries about the shape of the earth but they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. If people are coming along and saying that thousands of years of science is wrong, that all the photos and video from numerous space agencies are fake and all the people involved are lying then I'd suggest that is the more fantastic claim which has the burden of proof on it.
You need to set aside preconceived prejudices in order to participate in a debate in a reasonable manner. That FE is more "fantastic" than RE is purely a subjective opinion and can't be used to decide something so important as who has the burden of proof. We have the most basic empirical evidence on our side; the Earth looks flat. Therefore it's up to you to prove that it's not. With so much "proof" at your disposal it should be easy so what's the problem?
-
Hmm. But isn't that like me saying "I don't believe in kangaroos, I have never seen any kangaroos".
Of course, why wouldn't it be? I have never seen a kangaroo personally, but that doesn't mean you can't provide solid evidence that they exist. As the one making the claim that they exist why wouldn't the burden be on you to prove it? That you can do so quite easily in this particular instance is no refutation of Tom's point.
Well, I guess the point is the existence of kangaroos is not particularly controversial. If I claimed that they didn't exist then why isn't the burden of proof of the "great kangaroo conspiracy" on me? I'm the one making the crazy claim. Obviously "crazy" is subjective but I think it would be a pretty crazy claim that an entire species which there are numerous photos and videos of and which many people have seen in the flesh doesn't actually exist.
Again, the burden is on you. That it's easy to prove means nothing; you are making a positive claim (kangaroos exist), therefore if for some reason their existence were up for debate you would be the one who needs to prove his claim.
The RE model has been accepted for thousands of years, long before the space race. Photos and video from space and the claims of people who say they have travelled into orbit do reinforce what we've already known for centuries about the shape of the earth but they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. If people are coming along and saying that thousands of years of science is wrong, that all the photos and video from numerous space agencies are fake and all the people involved are lying then I'd suggest that is the more fantastic claim which has the burden of proof on it.
You need to set aside preconceived prejudices in order to participate in a debate in a reasonable manner. That FE is more "fantastic" than RE is purely a subjective opinion and can't be used to decide something so important as who has the burden of proof. We have the most basic empirical evidence on our side; the Earth looks flat. Therefore it's up to you to prove that it's not. With so much "proof" at your disposal it should be easy so what's the problem?
It does not look flat, we see the horizon and the path of the sun. Plus, of course, measured distances. What about alignment of satelllite tv dishes?
-
You need to set aside preconceived prejudices in order to participate in a debate in a reasonable manner. That FE is more "fantastic" than RE is purely a subjective opinion and can't be used to decide something so important as who has the burden of proof. We have the most basic empirical evidence on our side; the Earth looks flat. Therefore it's up to you to prove that it's not. With so much "proof" at your disposal it should be easy so what's the problem?
Well, it is subjective in that it is my opinion that FE is the more fantastic claim but I'd suggest if you polled random people the vast majority of people would agree.
And the problem is all the proof which has been presented is just declared to be fake. I'd suggest that the burden of proof that it is fake lies with FE.
Which brings us back to kangaroos. If I declared all photos and videos of kangaroos fake and called all people who have seen them liars then I could convince myself I was right about that too. You can do that with anything.
I and others have pointed out quite a few issues with the FE model, I've presented proof that for clouds to be lit from below the sun must be physically below the level of the clouds, and that perspective cannot account for things disappearing below the horizon on a flat plane. There has been little or no FE response. So the problem is the proof has been presented, it is just being ignored.
-
I have walked around outside for a while now and i can onestly say that it does not look flat it lumps and bumps.
So how is looking at the earth evidence?
-
The kangaroo is space travel. There is no reasonable doubt that space travel is faked, and there is an abundance of public knowledge and material evidence demonstrating its history and ongoing use; people insist that kangaroos aren't real.
This is my chosen sticking point for flat Earth debate. Prove the space travel conspiracy; without it, nothing else matters. (See also the Burden Of Proof link in my signature)
-
Hmm. But isn't that like me saying "I don't believe in kangaroos, I have never seen any kangaroos".
Of course, why wouldn't it be? I have never seen a kangaroo personally, but that doesn't mean you can't provide solid evidence that they exist. As the one making the claim that they exist why wouldn't the burden be on you to prove it? That you can do so quite easily in this particular instance is no refutation of Tom's point.
Well, I guess the point is the existence of kangaroos is not particularly controversial. If I claimed that they didn't exist then why isn't the burden of proof of the "great kangaroo conspiracy" on me? I'm the one making the crazy claim. Obviously "crazy" is subjective but I think it would be a pretty crazy claim that an entire species which there are numerous photos and videos of and which many people have seen in the flesh doesn't actually exist.
Again, the burden is on you. That it's easy to prove means nothing; you are making a positive claim (kangaroos exist), therefore if for some reason their existence were up for debate you would be the one who needs to prove his claim.
The RE model has been accepted for thousands of years, long before the space race. Photos and video from space and the claims of people who say they have travelled into orbit do reinforce what we've already known for centuries about the shape of the earth but they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. If people are coming along and saying that thousands of years of science is wrong, that all the photos and video from numerous space agencies are fake and all the people involved are lying then I'd suggest that is the more fantastic claim which has the burden of proof on it.
You need to set aside preconceived prejudices in order to participate in a debate in a reasonable manner. That FE is more "fantastic" than RE is purely a subjective opinion and can't be used to decide something so important as who has the burden of proof. We have the most basic empirical evidence on our side; the Earth looks flat. Therefore it's up to you to prove that it's not. With so much "proof" at your disposal it should be easy so what's the problem?
It does not look flat, we see the horizon and the path of the sun. Plus, of course, measured distances. What about alignment of satelllite tv dishes?
Regarding the satellite dish alignment, how can something stay in one place in the sky when everything else moves around on a 24 hour cycle?
-
The kangaroo is space travel. There is no reasonable doubt that space travel is faked, and there is an abundance of public knowledge and material evidence demonstrating its history and ongoing use; people insist that kangaroos aren't real.
This is my chosen sticking point for flat Earth debate. Prove the space travel conspiracy; without it, nothing else matters. (See also the Burden Of Proof link in my signature)
The thing is, even if it did transpire that NASA and all the other space agencies are faking it - obviously it won't, you can actually SEE the ISS from earth and NASA publish a site telling you when and where, and GPS and satellite TV demonstrably work. Where are they getting their signals from if it's not satellites? Anyway, even if it did...that still wouldn't show that the earth is flat. We have known for millennia that the earth is a globe, long before we could fly much less get into space.
-
Regarding the satellite dish alignment, how can something stay in one place in the sky when everything else moves around on a 24 hour cycle?
In the heliocentric model, it's simple. Satellites orbit the Earth, each one with a a particular period mandated by the distance from the Earth. The Moon is 400,000 km away, and its period is one month (more or less). Artificial satellites are usually much closer (though more than 100 km up, that being the nominal edge of the atmosphere) and have much shorter orbital periods. With me so far?
Well, low earth orbit satellites can whip around the globe in a matter of minutes. They're really moving. The farther away they are, the longer they take to get around the Earth (both travelling farther and going slower). It's just a matter of calculation to find the orbital distance that gives you a period of 24 hours; that is, the satellite goes around the Earth in exactly the same length of time that the Earth takes to rotate (as it happens, this is about 40,000 km up). From the ground, the satellite seems to just hang overhead. Note that this can only be done in the equatorial plane, as the satellite is still tracking around the centre of Earth's gravity. Note also that Arthur C Clarke predicted the concept of geosynchronous orbits long before they put a satellite in one.
So that's how it works with a globe. My question to you is, given the proven existence of geosync satellites ... how would they stay up in a flat earth scenario? In fact, how do any satellites stay up in a flat earth setup?
-
So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:
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?
I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.
In court prosecution has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that defendant is guilty.
Prosecution and defence work against each other.
They compete.
Science is not court.
In science there's no defendant.
We work together on progress, not against each other.
Purpose of scientific debate is not personal victory.
We all give as much proof as we can.
We cooperate.
When I say something, I KNOW what and why I'm saying, and I WILL prove it if possible, whether "burden of proof" is on me or not.
If you don't understand, or don't believe, just ask and I will explain.
Unless I'm silenced.
.
-
I'll add that discussion of the "burden of proof" is counterproductive to science education and changing people's beliefs, because you're effectively moving the goalposts from "we know with 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that the Earth is round" to "you can't prove we're wrong" -- when Round Earth is clearly in the right, and we can easily demonstrate the former. If we shift the burden of proof to the Flat Earthers, their attempts at using science/experiments to support their hypothesis will fall ... flat ... but we won't convince them; as Tom Bishop said in another thread, he believes that Round Earth hasn't provided "direct evidence" to show how wrong Flat Earth is (that's wrong... it's just he doesn't understand how many of our so-called "assumptions" were derived/verified).
If you're trying to convince someone else of the truth, then the burden of proof is on you. Of course, that doesn't mean that the other side can unreasonably ask you to re-prove the most basic facts (like 2+2 = 4 or the Law of Cosines or calculus); they should be willing to do research on things they're ignorant about. I believe that Round Earth people should take on the burden of proof and prove to beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth isn't flat. It's horribly easy to do, as long as the other side is willing to listen.
Another thing that I realized: we talk about "burden of proof" in situations where the information is incomplete; burden of proof is related to what we should assume by default. In a debate about the roundness of the Earth, all of the cards are in Round Earth's pile; the information is relatively complete and we need not resort to shifting a burden that we can easily carry.