[Xfires]

From what I have read over the last three hours the definition of proof very drastic from thread to thread and from person to person.

   -The claim that

The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

has very little evidence for it anywhere and yet FET thinks it is fact. I haven't found any evidence for this claim yet. Tom Bishop claims that any claim is his to prove and that without proof it can't be treated as a true statement. This same standard does not seem to be upheld by many of the FET.
   -My question is twofold, First what evidence is there for the FET that is also held to the same level of scrutiny and is proven by science(For science to work you must hold peer reviews even if you believe the same thing) and Second , Why does the RET have to prove basic knowledge as fact with many, many different forms of evidence from different sources but the supporters FET do not.

This is my first post to this form so feel free to leave tips that will help me convey my message, also if anyone would like me to a few of the claims and proofs the FET use as basic beliefes tha would be awsome because everything on the wiki is baseless and without any true documentation
 

[Tom Bishop]

The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

[StinkyOne]

The wiki, as far as I'm concerned, is only useful for getting a general idea of what FET is. As you noted, it is completely devoid of any proof and is merely a bunch of statements. Further, not every REer believes all of the stuff in the wiki. It's really a mess.

Proving things is almost impossible. Tom, who posted above, is notorious for demanding levels of proof that simply aren't available to your average person. Now, if it is something that he feels benefits FET, he will gladly accept it with no proof. I've also seen him post several youtube videos as proof of something.  My gut feeling is that demand for proof is really the only thing FEers have to defend against some really good points being made that invalidate FET. GPS is a great example. Tom likes to demand that we prove it isn't using "round Earth assumptions." The obvious answer is, if it is using round Earth assumptions and it works to an amazing degree of accuracy, it must be using the proper assumptions. So yeah, if you're asked to prove something to a level that's not reasonable, you're probably winning the argument.

[Tom Bishop]

The wiki, as far as I'm concerned, is only useful for getting a general idea of what FET is. As you noted, it is completely devoid of any proof and is merely a bunch of statements. Further, not every REer believes all of the stuff in the wiki. It's really a mess.

Proving things is almost impossible. Tom, who posted above, is notorious for demanding levels of proof that simply aren't available to your average person. Now, if it is something that he feels benefits FET, he will gladly accept it with no proof. I've also seen him post several youtube videos as proof of something.  My gut feeling is that demand for proof is really the only thing FEers have to defend against some really good points being made that invalidate FET. GPS is a great example. Tom likes to demand that we prove it isn't using "round Earth assumptions." The obvious answer is, if it is using round Earth assumptions and it works to an amazing degree of accuracy, it must be using the proper assumptions. So yeah, if you're asked to prove something to a level that's not reasonable, you're probably winning the argument.

I wouldn't make a claim that a mystery device is completely accurate. But you guys don't have a problem with making those sort of claims. Therefore I have nothing to prove, aside from the simple and empirical experiences some of our assertions are made from, like "birds descend into the horizon," that no one even bothers to question me on, and you have almost everything to prove.

[Mark_1984]

There are two levels of required proof.  If you're a flat earther, you can state claims without any real evidence or common sense, and they are taken as gospel.  E.g.  We don't know the distance from Paris to New York or the southern hemisphere hasn't been reliably mapped.
If you're a round earther, you can state the bleeding obvious and then receive ridiculous demands of proof.  E.g. 
RE : GPS proves that the earth is round.
FE : I don't believe in GPS - prove it's accurate.
RE : It's used by millions of people all over the planet all the time.  You have it on your phone.  You can see it works.
FE : That's not proof.  I demand real proof.

[Tom Bishop]

There are two levels of required proof.  If you're a flat earther, you can state claims without any real evidence or common sense, and they are taken as gospel.  E.g.  We don't know the distance from Paris to New York or the southern hemisphere hasn't been reliably mapped.

We have to prove that we don't know something? 

If you're a round earther, you can state the bleeding obvious and then receive ridiculous demands of proof.  E.g. 
RE : GPS proves that the earth is round.
FE : I don't believe in GPS - prove it's accurate.
RE : It's used by millions of people all over the planet all the time.  You have it on your phone.  You can see it works.
FE : That's not proof.  I demand real proof.

You claim you know something, and so you should provide evidence for this knowledge.

[Mark_1984]

See !  I told you.

It's 5834 km from Paris to New York.  Planes fly it every day.  We have maps, used by everybody, and they work.  It's a fact, to everybody expect Tom.
GPS works - everybody knows it.  Even Tom knows it as he can see a blue dot showing where he is on the map on his phone, but he doesn't accept it. 

I'm sure everybody can see the ludicrousness of the situation.  Well, perhaps everybody expect Tom.....

[Tom Bishop]

What do you have against providing evidence for your knowledge?

[Mark_1984]

What do you have against providing evidence for your knowledge?

I provided overwhelming empirical evidence above. What have you got against believing it ?

[Tom Bishop]

What do you have against providing evidence for your knowledge?

I provided overwhelming empirical evidence above. What have you got against believing it ?

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of empiricism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

[Mark_1984]

Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Now stop sidetracking the conversation and tell me why you don’t accept The fact that something has been used by millions of people for many years without any trouble as proof of something ?

[Curious Squirrel]

The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.

[Tom Bishop]

Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Now stop sidetracking the conversation and tell me why you don’t accept The fact that something has been used by millions of people for many years without any trouble as proof of something ?

Those people didn't actually verify the numbers. You are making an appeal to popularity fallacy. How do you know that the GPS distance from Paris to New York isn't off by 100 miles?

All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.

Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.

Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims. If you want to challenge our claims of descending birds in return, that is fine. We are willing to do that.

[inquisitive]

Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Now stop sidetracking the conversation and tell me why you don’t accept The fact that something has been used by millions of people for many years without any trouble as proof of something ?

Those people didn't actually verify the numbers. You are making an appeal to popularity fallacy. How do you know that the GPS distance from Paris to New York isn't off by 100 miles?

All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.

Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.

Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims. If you want to challenge our claims of descending birds in return, that is fine. We are willing to do that.

GPS provides location which are accurate to a few metres, the WGS84 model gives us the shape of the earth to a known accuracy.  What is your point about knowing a distance?  We use known distances all the time for navigation, what model do you use?

'You' have no evidence that the WGS84 model is wrong, unless you would like to provide it here.

As you know - 'WGS84 is an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed terrestrial reference system and geodetic datum. WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.'

[Tom Bishop]

You need to provide evidence that your claim is right, no one needs to prove you wrong. The person with the claim provides the evidence. If you bring a claim here, you are expected to defend it and provide basic evidence for your claim.

[Mark_1984]

There are two levels of required proof.  If you're a flat earther, you can state claims without any real evidence or common sense, and they are taken as gospel.  E.g.  We don't know the distance from Paris to New York or the southern hemisphere hasn't been reliably mapped.
If you're a round earther, you can state the bleeding obvious and then receive ridiculous demands of proof.  E.g. 
RE : GPS proves that the earth is round.
FE : I don't believe in GPS - prove it's accurate.
RE : It's used by millions of people all over the planet all the time.  You have it on your phone.  You can see it works.
FE : That's not proof.  I demand real proof.

I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !

[Tom Bishop]

I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !

Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.

You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.

[inquisitive]

I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !

Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.

You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge," we should automatically eat it all up as truth.

WGS84 has documentation that shows how it was produced by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.  Given how we navigate across the world there is no reason to doubt its accuracy.

If you challenge it I suggest you contact NGA directly with your concerns.  It is they who provide the definition and the data.

We are aware you have provided no alternative reference system, or even a proposal as to how you would produce one.

[Mark_1984]

I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !

Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.

You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.

See, I told you he’d have some ridiculous reason.

You can throw in some personal experience too.  I was a radio office on merchant vessels in the 80s and am quite capable of measuring distances on a map and using the ship’s speed to work out etas.   We were usually on time, and when we weren’t, we knew why.

[Xfires]

I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !

Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.

You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.

That's my point, your claim that "birds descend into the horizon" is only my perspective and that holds true whether you believe in the flat earth or the round earth. Therefore it makes very little sense to use it as a reason to believe in the flat earth.
   
-Furthermore, your claim that we need to show you evidence that GPS works are very shallow. This is because people in the scientific community have no reason to prove something that is already known as fact so it is almost impossible to give you evidence that you will reach your impossible standard.

   -How about this, please inform me to how the Coriolis effect and the jet stream would be possible using the FET. You must show your evidence and research that drew you to this conclusion otherwise it is just an unproven hypothesis.

I know this is not the actual research papers but they tend to cost money.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/
https://www.livescience.com/27825-jet-stream.html