[InquisitiveREer]

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

I know the big responce to this will be "but round earth theory doesn't provide acquit proof" the common responce to that is "you dismiss any proof provided as false, inaccurate, or part of a conspiracy."

[InquisitiveREer]

I genuinely would like a flat earth perspective awnser to my previous post

[Pete Svarrior]

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

Well, that's your opinion. Who are we to tell you otherwise? Personally, I consider the opposite to be the case (some coherent RE'ers exist, but the vast majority say things like "if the Earth is flat then what do compasses point to?" or "Explain how it can be night in the southern hemisphere but, day in the northern hemisphere"), so I draw the opposite conclusion.

[Curious Squirrel]

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

Well, that's your opinion. Who are we to tell you otherwise? Personally, I consider the opposite to be the case (some coherent RE'ers exist, but the vast majority say things like "if the Earth is flat then what do compasses point to?" or "Explain how it can be night in the southern hemisphere but, day in the northern hemisphere"), so I draw the opposite conclusion.

That doesn't really relate to his comment though. It wasn't about statements by/from such people (and I could point plenty of incoherencies by the FE side too) but rather the coherency of the idea itself. For RE, you generally get one, single, coherent answer to a question. For FE, this isn't really the case. About the only thing the FE community agrees on at large is the Earth being flat. There's no less than 3 options for the basic overall idea of the Earth, at least 2 for general continental layout, at least 2 for how the sun sets, and more. Most 'answers' start with the supposition that the Earth is flat, and attempt to create some way to explain observed phenomenon. Often with no respect to other known things (see shadow object and 'perspective').

In what way is the FE hypothesis 'coherent'? There's issues even within individual models at times.

[JohnAdams1145]

This is definitely not a fair argument to make. Obviously, each side dismisses some of the other side's beliefs about how the universe works. From the perspective of either side, the other side sounds less coherent because a lot of the things that one side says will make no sense in the context of the other's scientific belief.

For example, from an RE perspective, universal acceleration and the various "gravitation" forces are an incoherent attempt at fixing a deeply flawed hypothesis: the Earth is flat. The amount of correction is so mind-boggling that it's like overfitting a machine learning model; while the hypothesis may eventually explain all current observations (with IMHO a ton of corrections that FE people haven't yet fleshed out), it continually needs fixing because it has no predictive power.

Yet, and I disclaim that I cannot speak well for FE, on the other side, things like gravity make no sense to them because, well, it's just an observed force that causes masses to attract each other; there's really not a good explanation of how it exists via the mediator particles found in the Standard Model. To them, the argument of a sphere being locally flat is a rationalization of the observation that the area around us is flat. They don't see physics as Round Earth people do; sometimes, even stuff like Newton's laws has been questioned. It doesn't help that the horizon is almost flat, that accelerometers read 0 in freefall, rockets are hard to get into space, and that generally modern science is a very complex thing.

I should note that while modern science is a very complex thing, it is so far the simplest explanation that scientists can find for a plethora of observations and experiments, many of which FE is unfamiliar with (but then again, that's the opinion of a Round Earther).

[InquisitiveREer]

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

Well, that's your opinion. Who are we to tell you otherwise? Personally, I consider the opposite to be the case (some coherent RE'ers exist, but the vast majority say things like "if the Earth is flat then what do compasses point to?" or "Explain how it can be night in the southern hemisphere but, day in the northern hemisphere"), so I draw the opposite conclusion.

So in your opinion or that of any FE'er what counts as coherent?

[AATW]

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

Well, that's your opinion. Who are we to tell you otherwise? Personally, I consider the opposite to be the case (some coherent RE'ers exist, but the vast majority say things like "if the Earth is flat then what do compasses point to?" or "Explain how it can be night in the southern hemisphere but, day in the northern hemisphere"), so I draw the opposite conclusion.

Come on. That just isn't true. You've been here longer than me so maybe that is your experience but since I've been here I haven't seen many round earthers saying anything that silly.
Compare and contrast with Tom who says stuff like claiming no-one knows how far NY is from Paris, sunset is caused by perspective, moonlight is cold and that lampposts "see" a raised hand on the horizon and so aim their photos up at it despite the lamp physically being above the level of the hand.

Most of the difficult questions REers pose about things like the spotlight sun remain unanswered - what keeps it in the sky, what causes its orbit to keep changing to cause seasons and lunar phases, why we can't see it at night when we can see the moon (i.e. how can the rays shining sideways from it be powerful enough to reflect to earth but the rays shining diagonally from it not reach us). There's not even an agreed FE map, so how do the airline industry get people around so reliably? The FE model as outlined in your Wiki doesn't seem the slightest bit coherent and doesn't match observations.

[Pete Svarrior]

For RE, you generally get one, single, coherent answer to a question.

This is simply not the case. It is easier for you to focus on the one "correct" answer and dismiss people who muddy the waters, because you speak from the perspective of someone who's already convinced. In my time here, and these are just a handful of examples, I've spoken to people who think that the Earth is round because it's spinning (on live radio!), people who say the Equivalence Principle must be false, and people who believe that there have been no observed anomalies to the mainstream RE model of gravity. I've spoken to people who believe that the Earth's curvature must be observable from commercial aircraft with the naked eye (which, of course, would make the Earth much smaller than advertised).

Similarly, when I see someone who claims (say) that the source of the effects of gravity is density, I pay little attention to them, because I know they're wrong. Thus, if you ask me if I've noticed the extent of inconsistencies between FE'ers, my perception is likely to diminish them. It goes both ways.

Come on. That just isn't true. You've been here longer than me so maybe that is your experience but since I've been here I haven't seen many round earthers saying anything that silly.

They don't tend to stick around for long - they either leave of their own volition, or we assist them in doing so (terrible reasoning and inability to adhere to simple rules tend to go hand-in-hand). But bear in mind that I also manage our social media and deal with some of our press relations. I appreciate that my word might not mean much to you, but I do promise that I've witnessed each and every example I brought up here.

[Curious Squirrel]

For RE, you generally get one, single, coherent answer to a question.

This is simply not the case. It is easier for you to focus on the one "correct" answer and dismiss people who muddy the waters, because you speak from the perspective of someone who's already convinced. In my time here, and these are just a handful of examples, I've spoken to people who think that the Earth is round because it's spinning (on live radio!), people who say the Equivalence Principle must be false, and people who believe that there have been no observed anomalies to the mainstream RE model of gravity. I've spoken to people who believe that the Earth's curvature must be observable from commercial aircraft with the naked eye (which, of course, would make the Earth much smaller than advertised).

Similarly, when I see someone who claims (say) that the source of the effects of gravity is density, I pay little attention to them, because I know they're wrong. Thus, if you ask me if I've noticed the extent of inconsistencies between FE'ers, my perception is likely to diminish them. It goes both ways.

Come on. That just isn't true. You've been here longer than me so maybe that is your experience but since I've been here I haven't seen many round earthers saying anything that silly.

They don't tend to stick around for long - they either leave of their own volition, or we assist them in doing so (terrible reasoning and inability to adhere to simple rules tend to go hand-in-hand). But bear in mind that I also manage our social media and deal with some of our press relations. I appreciate that my word might not mean much to you, but I do promise that I've witnessed each and every example I brought up here.

I have no doubt that you have, and after JohnAdams post I would in fact revise my own to a far more simple (and I believe true) statement that simply amounts to your 'stance' of FE being more coherent than RE is false IF we are to take in the view of essentially everyone who holds to one or the other. I have no doubt you believe there is one coherent FE hypothesis, just as I believe that there is one coherent RE model. That I feel I have yet to find/see one for FE is another matter entirely different from there being one or not.

[AATW]

They don't tend to stick around for long - they either leave of their own volition, or we assist them in doing so (terrible reasoning and inability to adhere to simple rules tend to go hand-in-hand). But bear in mind that I also manage our social media and deal with some of our press relations. I appreciate that my word might not mean much to you, but I do promise that I've witnessed each and every example I brought up here.

I guess overall given that:
a) There are a lot of stupids in the world and
b) The vast majority of people are Round Earthers
It stands to reason that most stupids will be Round Earthers.
So I'm sure you're right. For the record, while you have come across as pretty rude in our interactions so far I have no reason to think you're a liar.

Aside from the drive by "earth is round, ur stupid" idiots, I'd say most of the regular Round Earthers on here are pretty articulate and provide evidence of their assertions. It's the flat earthers (notably Tom) who assert things without basis (other than "Rowbotham said so"), fail to answer the difficult questions or just walk away from the thread when they're shown to be wrong.

Now, you could say "we've been at this 10 years, we've had these conversations a million times, we're bored of answering the same questions" which is a fairly valid stance. But that is what the Wiki is for and the answers to these more difficult questions simply aren't there. My thread about the flat earth sun generated a few pages of debate but the more difficult questions still remain unanswered.

[xenotolerance]

RationalWiki has a good writeup on this topic:

Skeptics look at experiments to ensure that they were performed properly with the appropriate controls, proper data analysis and so on. The skeptical method involves examining all data and coming to a conclusion that it produces. Denialists, on the other hand, view data slightly differently, as a means to a predetermined end – minimizing its importance if it goes against their opinion, highlighting it if it supports them, or just plain misrepresenting it for their own purposes. Skeptics keep an open mind until data shows that a hypothesis is invalid, while denialists start with the conclusion and look for support. To put it another way, denialism embraces confirmation bias while skepticism seeks to avoid it.

One blogger put it this way:

"Skeptics also ask questions, but a big difference between skeptics and denialists is that skeptics listen to answers and regard evidence as paramount. Denialists tend to see the piles of evidence against their claim, and see a conspiracy theory to perpetuate a hoax. But skeptics accept good evidence. Skeptics have a lot of respect for science, and denialists are usually out to undermine scientists working in the field where they have an agenda. Denialists will wear the costume of scientific thinking, but they usually show a piss-poor understanding how … the accumulation of studies and data work. (For instance, they promote the idea that if one study can be found to be flawed, this brings down the whole theory, as if the other hundreds of studies don’t count.)..."

See the Place of the Conspiracy page on the wiki:

A zetetic starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this. As a consequence they assume the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

I'm interested in what, exactly, some of our hosts see as the evidence 'they are personally able to collect and verify' that the Earth is flat. I know they've been challenged on it a thousand times so it's boring and annoying to explain, and I don't want to insist, but it's fascinating when someone like Parsifal writes:

<Parsifal> I mean if you look into it the Round Earth theory makes a lot of sense
<Parsifal> The only problem with it is that the Earth isn't round

...when there exists an international space station that one can see with the naked eye or take detailed pictures of, which just by existing shows this whole belief system is false.