1) "I like how the RE perspective is to just look at it from their own closed view of the world"
I think if you thought a little bit harder before posting this somewhat petulant statement, you might appreciate that its hypocrisy. What perspective would you expect any person with a counter opinion to present with? Their own. Just as you look at things through your own perspectives - whatever they might be.
Instead of divorcing that sentence from its context, look at the very next line.
With all due respect, this is palpable nonsense. When scientific princples are taught, they are always related back to the first princples from which they originated.
That is simply not true. How old were you before you even heard the name, say, Cavendish? How many years before that were you told to believe in orbits?
Look how many people know tidbits like E=mc
2 or the speed of light as a limit, but couldn't tell you what those letters stand for or why the speed of light is a limit; look how many noobs come in insisting UA's impossible because it'd lead to exceeding the speed of light. Look at how every science textbook and classroom is based on memorizing statements, not deriving them. What did you spend more time studying, the scientific method and how and why it works, or statements you wouldn't know how to derive? One of those is far more important, one of those should underpin everything you've learned.
I still remember when I was younger and bothered with religious debates, and one of the discussions I had was with a young earther, where I tried to use radiometric dating... and I got schooled, because class hadn't bothered with any of the crucial details of how it is we know it works. No mention of calibration curves, tree rings for shorter-term dating, how we know the relative amounts of various elements. We were just told that it's constant. Zero explanation for where that knowledge comes from, we're just expected to believe it.
It's a fundamental problem with the education system, and that's speaking as someone that grew up in the US and UK so I got a taste of both. So much of it is focused around being expected to memorise facts without understanding them.
Now lets consider as most FE believers do, that all our known mathematics are wrong. (Because this is the only way, that a RE model could be fundamentally discounted. If a FE believer doesn't discount our known mathematics, then there is an insurmountable paradox: no believer in a FE model can also believe in modern mathematics.
Utter rubbish. Instead of whinging that FEers dare disagree with you, try to respond to the actual discussion.
This is anotehr crucial problem. You are raised believing that observations and theory may as well be the same thing, that if we see something and RET has an answer, there is no possible way anything else could also explain it.
This would mean that driving a car, or flying in a plane (which we can demonstably do - there are even FE pilots on here) can no longer be explained by our current mathematical models. If this is the case, then it is demonstrably up to the FE community to propose a new explanation. It's not sufficient to simply call modern science a "cult" or a "conspiracy". If you're right, then simply prove it. I will always listen to alternate theory - it's (ironically for FE) one of the central tenets of science - the offering of a counter theory and a proof by observable calculation. Why, for example, can't a FE (like Mad Mike Hughes in the US), go up to altitude or indeed travel to "underneath" the FE and prove the theory - or indeed conclude they are mistaken? Consider, the physical laws of circular motion, if the flat earth theory is correct, there would be utterly inexplicable problems explaing why someone living in northern Sweden experiences the exact same graviational forces as say, my living in Australia. In a FE theory, I should be being torn apart.... but I'm not. Now a single observation like that proves nothing, but if you apply a particular theory, then it should work for all applications - and our current mathematics, in my opinion, do.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Your point "You are taught what people believe, not how it was developed, not why it is believed..." should surely be challenging the ancient architects of modern day science - because if they were wrong, then everything is wrong.(*)
(*it should be noted that scientific theories are sometimes adapted not because they are necessarily wrong, but are not right in all circumstances - classically Newton's laws of motion at sub-light speed which do not work at speeds approaching light speed (as per Einsteins relativity).
[/b]
Congrats, you just refuted your whole bs line of reasoning.
So please explain why, having proposed a FE theory, has nobody made any tangible attempts to prove it as opposed to simply refuting the SE model
A) We do.
B) Performed experiments don't cease existing or stop counting as evidence, if another model accounts for them better then it should be preferred.
C) As you pointed out, there is no consensus, what exactly would be the point of doing an experiment that a lot of us wouldn't expect to see anything odd with? I've been pitching an experiment a while, I just lack the resources to do it (and it wouldn't count for anything given anything I provide that dares be contrary to RET would be rejected out of hand), and it wouldn't mean anything to other FEers.