[Rama Set]

That the Earth is round is an observable fact.  There is no such thing as "Round Earth Theory".  At best there is a convergence of many other physical theories that are often used to rebut "Flat Earth Theory"

[andruszkow]

Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.

No, I did not forget, I neglected to quote it. However, if you insist, I'll address that disparate comment at the end.



This is for Andruszkow and Rama Set (Who should really know better. I can forgive this noob, but you disappoint me, Rama):

Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.

Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?

One need look no further than this very post to see what constitutes a "theory." Venus laid it out quote nicely when she said, "In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena."  This is what constitutes a theory and I say that flat-earth meets these requirements. However, that's beside the point. I'm here to shred your argument, Andruszkow.

In science, being observable doesn't graduate something from a theory to a fact. As Venus points out, a theory is an explanation of observations. The theory of evolution is undeniably true, but it will never (correctly) be called "the fact of evolution" because it's an explanation for a set of observations.

By definition, round-earth theory is a theory. Even if it was conclusively demonstrated to everyone in the world, it would still be called round-earth theory because (say it with me now) it's an explanation for a set of observations.

So in this light, saying, "...round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact," is mind-boggling. It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's a statement so deeply flawed of that it betrays a strong degree of ignorance to the use of scientific terms.

That you have trust issues with the authority that made these observations publicly available to begin with doesn't change that

To address your second non sequitur ad hominem... Well I sort of just did. But because you seem to think it's a valid argument I suppose I'll explain why it's a non sequitur ad hominem.

Non sequitur: This does not logically track. Me having trust issues with the source data does not make the source data valid. Nor does it in any way lend credibility to the source data. Restated, it reads, "Because I have trust issues with the data, it does not change that flat-earth theory is a fact." It's a conclusion (round-earth is a fact) that does not follow it's premise (I have trust issues). My level of trust does not effect the validity of the data.

Ad hominem: You are attacking me, not the argument. The notion that I have trust issues with the source data does not mean that the source data is valid or invalid and it certainly does not mean that the world is round or flat.

You know what, I agree with you and your entire essay. It might be that my English is bad (Or that I'm lazy, usually browse on my phone), but I remember someone here had a signature that said something along the lines of "It's incredible that you need to write 6000 words essays to remove all ambiguity".

What I should have said was:

That the earth is a sphere is a fact because, as you say, it's observable. The explanation to how it became the spheroid it is, is another story. The reason I replied like I did was because I assumed you were a FE'er. I'm well aware of the scientific principles (orbital mechanics and electronic engineering studies), but when I see FE'ers writing round earth theory in their posts, I usually assume that they refer to their belief that nothing proves that the earth is a globe, which is wrong.

It can't be a theory that the earth is a globe, according to scientific principles, because it's observable that it is.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I think the point Rama is trying to make is that it isn't a scientific theory, because it isn't even in the realm of science. Nobody seriously studies whether the earth is round or not, because it is blatantly obvious that it is round. It's a fact in the same sense that "doors exist" is a fact. There isn't a "door theory" dedicated to answering the question of whether or not doors exist, is there? Of course not.

However, for the purpose of this website, I am willing to humor the flat earth "theorists" and refer to it as a theory.

If there is a website dedicated to the "doors don't exist" theory, I'd humor them as well. Heh, I can see it now:

For: "Maybe what you think are doors are actually just really thin walls"
Against: "But we can walk through doors... we can't walk through walls"
For: "Maybe you are phasing through the thin walls, and the government is suppressing the knowledge of phasing technology"
Against: "But we can actually see the door physically open"
Tom Bishop For: "Nah, that's just perspective"

[rabinoz]

This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.

*ahem* I don't want to completely derail this thread, but this just isn't true. Here is one example of an observation that contradicts the flat earth "theory". There are many more examples if you are curious.

Examples of enlarged headlights were provided in that thread.

And reasons why that explanation is quite invalid were also given, which you seem to have ignored.

[rabinoz]

I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.

I seem out of step here (being morning in a different time zone to most), but I am curious as to your staement "I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions."

Just what predictions can the "Flat Earth Model" make, that might be different from the heliocentric globe?

I don't believe I have seen any.

[CableDawg]

In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena.

This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.

I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanations

If you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory.  Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.

Perhaps then we might start to take you seriously.

I doubt it. Experience has shown that round-earthers almost never change their beliefs when presented with facts. They take the dogma from their scientists like a religious zealot and cling to it hard as they can.

No.  Your explanations don't meet all observations, unless you limit observation to the physical location of a particular individual at a particular time (what the FE supporter can see with their own eyes).

No.  FET doesn't make any valid, independent, predictions.  It does however force that which is already explained into an explanation which is more comfortable for the FE supporter.

Yes.  FET does invent explanations.  In FET the hammer doesn't fall, Earth rushes up to it.

Round Earthers almost never change their minds when presented with facts?  Almost never explicitly means that the vast majority of people, scientists and those who live their lives due to science (you included, since you're interacting via a computer on the internet), have never changed their minds since the advent of the Scientific Method a few hundred years ago.  At one point in time all diseases and disabilities were thought to have been due to the imbalance of 4 humors.  When you go to the doctor does he/she treat you based upon the 4 humors or do they treat you based upon the facts they know of a particular disease/disability?  There are too many more instances of change of belief in the face of fact to list in this thread, perhaps you should start an independent thread to show how round Earthers almost never change their mind in the face of facts.

[CableDawg]

Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.

Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?

Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.

...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.

No, that's not what I meant.

In this context, by "useful", I mean "useful for determining which theory is correct". If both theories predict that the hammer will fall, then that prediction is useless for determining which theory is correct. The useful predictions are those that differ from the other theory. We can use the different predictions to test which theory is correct.

I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.

Are the predictions made by FET valid, well documented, well supported and repeatable?  Are these 4 points met by those who don't believe FET to be anywhere near fact? 

Scientific fact is supported by these 4 points, regardless if the fact is tested by the most ardent believer or the most vehement denier.  This is what gives the Scientific Method its strength.

[CableDawg]

Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.

No, I did not forget, I neglected to quote it. However, if you insist, I'll address that disparate comment at the end.



This is for Andruszkow and Rama Set (Who should really know better. I can forgive this noob, but you disappoint me, Rama):

Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.

Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?

One need look no further than this very post to see what constitutes a "theory." Venus laid it out quote nicely when she said, "In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena."  This is what constitutes a theory and I say that flat-earth meets these requirements. However, that's beside the point. I'm here to shred your argument, Andruszkow.

In science, being observable doesn't graduate something from a theory to a fact. As Venus points out, a theory is an explanation of observations. The theory of evolution is undeniably true, but it will never (correctly) be called "the fact of evolution" because it's an explanation for a set of observations.

By definition, round-earth theory is a theory. Even if it was conclusively demonstrated to everyone in the world, it would still be called round-earth theory because (say it with me now) it's an explanation for a set of observations.

So in this light, saying, "...round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact," is mind-boggling. It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's a statement so deeply flawed of that it betrays a strong degree of ignorance to the use of scientific terms.

That you have trust issues with the authority that made these observations publicly available to begin with doesn't change that

To address your second non sequitur ad hominem... Well I sort of just did. But because you seem to think it's a valid argument I suppose I'll explain why it's a non sequitur ad hominem.

Non sequitur: This does not logically track. Me having trust issues with the source data does not make the source data valid. Nor does it in any way lend credibility to the source data. Restated, it reads, "Because I have trust issues with the data, it does not change that flat-earth theory is a fact." It's a conclusion (round-earth is a fact) that does not follow it's premise (I have trust issues). My level of trust does not effect the validity of the data.

Ad hominem: You are attacking me, not the argument. The notion that I have trust issues with the source data does not mean that the source data is valid or invalid and it certainly does not mean that the world is round or flat.

What, exactly, have you shredded?

Aside from the realm of flat Earth sites and communities, round Earth theory doesn't exist.  It only exists there as a convenient container for the set of all things which aren't flat Earth.

What does exist is Scientific Method and scientific fact.  As soon as flat Earth "theories" are put into the Scientific Method they are quickly and repeatedly shown to be false.

[rabinoz]

I posted this earlier, asking Pongo "Just what predictions can the "Flat Earth Model" make, that might be different from the heliocentric globe?"

I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.

I seem out of step here (being morning in a different time zone to most), but I am curious as to your staement "I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions."

Just what predictions can the "Flat Earth Model" make, that might be different from the heliocentric globe?

I don't believe I have seen any.

Am I to assume that there aren't any?

[Venus]

In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena.

This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.

I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanations

If you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory.  Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.

Perhaps then we might start to take you seriously.

I doubt it. Experience has shown that round-earthers almost never change their beliefs when presented with facts. They take the dogma from their scientists like a religious zealot and cling to it hard as they can.

One thing the scientific method has going for it is that when new observations or evidence come to light scientists are prepared to modify or even completely throw out an existing theory.
However the fact that the earth is a sphere has held steady since ancient Greek times ... 2500 years ago !!
So it has been modified and now we have evidence that in fact it is an oblate sphere... but none of our observations have ever discarded the spherical bit!!

Have you ever noticed how many times scientists HAVE modified or completely discarded a theory, when new observations (often provided by new technologies such as the development of telescopes or microscopes) have been made...
Here are just a few of them ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories