Adrenoch

Your Path to FE
« on: March 19, 2019, 07:25:28 PM »
First post here. I've been a science educator for much of my professional life and have always been fascinated with how people come to the beliefs they do about "settled science."

What was it that convinced you FE is real? Was it one thing, or an accumulation of ideas? Was there a straw that broke the camel's back for you?

Do you ever have doubts now, or are you steadfast in your position?

What could convince you that FE isn't correct?

Have you ever pursued any research on your own along these lines?

Thanks in advance. I promise not to get into any arguments. Just curious about people's paths here.

SeaCritique

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2019, 10:55:18 PM »
What was it that convinced you FE is real? Was it one thing, or an accumulation of ideas? Was there a straw that broke the camel's back for you?

Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits. It was, for me, an accumulation of ideas; the plain and simple logic of flat Earth just makes sense to me far more than a globe Earth.

Do you ever have doubts now, or are you steadfast in your position?

I consider myself always skeptical, but steadfast in this position.

What could convince you that FE isn't correct?

Put me in a rocket, launch me up, and show me the globe.

Have you ever pursued any research on your own along these lines?

I have not yet.

Thanks in advance. I promise not to get into any arguments. Just curious about people's paths here.

You're welcome.

If you wish to debate, feel free. If you wish to argue, Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense are free and open places.  ;)

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2019, 12:55:16 PM »
Put me in a rocket, launch me up, and show me the globe.

Are you saying a trip in a rocket is the only thing that could convince you? I ask because you say you became convinced of FE by reading articles, but it would take a rocket trip and first-hand witnessing for you to become convinced of a globe. Obviously, those are two very different levels of evidence for each position. Is there something less dramatic that could convince you of a globe?

If you wish to debate, feel free. If you wish to argue, Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense are free and open places.  ;)

I love a good debate, but I don't think it would be of much use. I've been pulled into hundreds of debates in my professional life with people who espouse creationism, expanding Earth theories, anti-vaccines, climate change denial, moon hoaxes, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. With a couple of exceptions, I don't think discussing evidence actually has any impact. Everyone, myself included, overestimates their ability to judge the merits of a given piece of evidence.

SeaCritique

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2019, 02:07:09 PM »
Put me in a rocket, launch me up, and show me the globe.

Are you saying a trip in a rocket is the only thing that could convince you? I ask because you say you became convinced of FE by reading articles,

I didn't say that.

but it would take a rocket trip and first-hand witnessing for you to become convinced of a globe. Obviously, those are two very different levels of evidence for each position. Is there something less dramatic that could convince you of a globe?

I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence. 

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2019, 02:54:37 PM »
For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space
Why do you deem that an extraordinary claim? All the other bodies we observe are spherical, gravity explains why all bodies above a certain size (mass really) are spherical.
I'd suggest it's an extraordinary claim that the earth is somehow different from every other body we can observe.
Especially given our observations are indicative of being on a globe

« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 03:54:33 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2019, 03:08:45 PM »
What was it that convinced you FE is real?

Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits.


That is literally what you said though in response to his first question. You said nothing of witnessing anything in your initial response.

Have you done any experiments that test any of this evidence that you have read and witnessed? Or, are you simply believing what you see and what you read?

And again, what evidence would convince you otherwise? Based in your previous posts, that is a narrow window. So far, we have paid space travel, which you currently deny has ever happened.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 03:18:36 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2019, 03:37:01 PM »
I didn't say that.

Sorry, you're correct. I shouldn't have paraphrased. You said, "Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits."

I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence.

Fair enough. But the belief in a flat earth also comes with some extraordinary baggage of its own. In order for it to be true, nearly every field of science would need to be dramatically rewritten. The reason a globe Earth is so prevalent, is that it is remarkably consistent with what we know of other sciences. So when you suggest that the Earth being flat requires less evidence because you're witnessing what appears to be flat, you're also discarding a stunning amount of very successful scientific theory regarding almost every field that is compatible with a globe Earth, but not with a flat Earth.

As an example, I was once contacted by someone who believed the (global) Earth is expanding. It turns out, there's a surprising number of people who believe this. This group, over several decades, had developed a completely new set of physical laws to explain every aspect of reality. I was amazed at the depth of their work - this was countless hundreds of thousands of man-hours to put together all these videos, papers, etc., to show that this was the true model of the universe. But what was most amazing to me, was that all of this hinged on the idea that oceanic plates don't subduct beneath continental plates, and yet, nobody was putting in any effort to prove or disprove that idea. Instead, because they felt that their expanding Earth model was intuitively true, they focused all their efforts on things that would support it, rather than the crux issue that could settle it.

Likewise, you may intuitively feel that the Earth is flat, but in order for that to be correct you must also believe in a conspiracy across cultures, time, countries, and untold individuals - And, you must also believe that most of what we understand about science is not just wrong, but somehow internally consistently wrong.

All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.

Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2019, 07:17:26 PM »
What was it that convinced you FE is real? Was it one thing, or an accumulation of ideas? Was there a straw that broke the camel's back for you?
Lots and lots of little things. If there was a straw that broke the camel's back, it was seeing the reaction of the mainstream to competing models, there's an utter lack of reasoned discussion or informed rejection. You can't trust anything based on that foundation. That didn't convince me of FET, it just convinced me to check a few things out and think for myself, and FET was the unavoidable conclusion.

Quote
Do you ever have doubts now, or are you steadfast in your position?
Doubt's the wrong word, but I'm always open to being proven wrong or to need to refine my position, but at this point in time, barring some outstanding new discovery, I am confident that the Earth is flat. The only wiggle room is precisely how the model functions.

Quote
What could convince you that FE isn't correct?
RET practising what it preaches. When the scientific method starts to be followed and that starts to lead towards RET rather than away, with some replicable discovery, then that'll be a cue to re-examine.

Quote
Have you ever pursued any research on your own along these lines?
I learn what I can about various topics, always work towards improving my understanding. Generally the fact that complex issues begin to make intuitive sense rather than function as excuses like they do under RET ends up further solidifyign my view.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

manicminer

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2019, 07:20:57 PM »
Quote
Why do you deem that an extraordinary claim? All the other bodies we observe are spherical, gravity explains why all bodies above a certain size (mass really) are spherical.
I agree with this. Even the minor bodies of solar system (asteroids and comets) which are below the mass limit to become spherical are irregular shaped.

For the Earth to become flat it would need to spin on its axis much, much faster than  it does. Jupiter, the largest and most massive planet in the solar system is also the fastest spinning.  It rotates fully in just under 10 hours. The spin of a planet causes a polar flattening effect (polar diameter less than the equatorial diameter) and this is most noticeable with Jupiter.

manicminer

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2019, 07:29:35 PM »
Just out of interest JRowe, how do you explain the observation that in the northern hemisphere the Sun rises in the east and moves to the south, while in the southern hemisphere it rises in the east and then moves to the north.  So at noon shadows in the northern hemisphere point directly south but in the southern hemisphere they point directly north.  That would be difficult to explain according to the model given in the FAQ section of FE Wiki wouldn't it?

Easy to explain if you understand RET properly though.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2019, 08:41:11 PM »
Just out of interest JRowe, how do you explain the observation that in the northern hemisphere the Sun rises in the east and moves to the south, while in the southern hemisphere it rises in the east and then moves to the north.  So at noon shadows in the northern hemisphere point directly south but in the southern hemisphere they point directly north.  That would be difficult to explain according to the model given in the FAQ section of FE Wiki wouldn't it?

Easy to explain if you understand RET properly though.
Case in point.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

SeaCritique

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2019, 02:50:01 AM »
Fair enough. But the belief in a flat earth also comes with some extraordinary baggage of its own. In order for it to be true, nearly every field of science would need to be dramatically rewritten. The reason a globe Earth is so prevalent, is that it is remarkably consistent with what we know of other sciences. So when you suggest that the Earth being flat requires less evidence because you're witnessing what appears to be flat, you're also discarding a stunning amount of very successful scientific theory regarding almost every field that is compatible with a globe Earth, but not with a flat Earth.

You'll have to quantify "nearly every," which I'll assume to be 95%+, and then explain to me how natural sciences like biology, chemistry, zoology, and botany depend upon a globe. I'm assuming, too, that you aren't including social or formal sciences such as anthropology and logic, respectively.

As an example, I was once contacted by someone who believed the (global) Earth is expanding. It turns out, there's a surprising number of people who believe this. This group, over several decades, had developed a completely new set of physical laws to explain every aspect of reality. I was amazed at the depth of their work - this was countless hundreds of thousands of man-hours to put together all these videos, papers, etc., to show that this was the true model of the universe. But what was most amazing to me, was that all of this hinged on the idea that oceanic plates don't subduct beneath continental plates, and yet, nobody was putting in any effort to prove or disprove that idea. Instead, because they felt that their expanding Earth model was intuitively true, they focused all their efforts on things that would support it, rather than the crux issue that could settle it.

If, as it seems to me, you're implying that we FE'ers here are cherry-picking evidence, I think that you'll find yourself mistaken.

Likewise, you may intuitively feel that the Earth is flat, but in order for that to be correct you must also believe in a conspiracy across cultures, time, countries, and untold individuals - And, you must also believe that most of what we understand about science is not just wrong, but somehow internally consistently wrong.

My "intuition," acknowledged as though it is, is secondary to experimentation and observation. Have you read our Wiki, or have you looked up questions you have on the forum(s)?

As well, I disagree about the conspiracy. Cultures? No. Time? Define. Countries? Some. Untold individuals? Dozens, perhaps.

All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.

Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."

Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done. We clearly disagree that most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. You came up with that monumental, unfounded claim.

A flat Earth is still -- and fairly -- plain, simple, and logical.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2019, 03:09:06 AM »
All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.

Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."

Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done. We clearly disagree that most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. You came up with that monumental, unfounded claim.

A flat Earth is still -- and fairly -- plain, simple, and logical.

The word intuition aside, I would say a flat earth is not plain & simple though it may be logical in some respects, but not in many others.

Point of fact, all long haul transportation of goods and humans, by sea or air, is navigated via a globe earth model, great circles, etc. So where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is when FET can summon a better means of worldly transport than exists today and prove that point. Be a global transport 'disruptor' as it were. Until such time there is nothing plain, simple, and logical about a flat earth construct. If FE were plain, simple, and logical there would be a map.

SeaCritique

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2019, 12:27:30 PM »
The word intuition aside, I would say a flat earth is not plain & simple though it may be logical in some respects, but not in many others.

Point of fact, all long haul transportation of goods and humans, by sea or air, is navigated via a globe earth model, great circles, etc. So where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is when FET can summon a better means of worldly transport than exists today and prove that point. Be a global transport 'disruptor' as it were. Until such time there is nothing plain, simple, and logical about a flat earth construct. If FE were plain, simple, and logical there would be a map.

Beware of the straw man.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2019, 03:34:55 PM »
Lots and lots of little things. If there was a straw that broke the camel's back, it was seeing the reaction of the mainstream to competing models, there's an utter lack of reasoned discussion or informed rejection. You can't trust anything based on that foundation. That didn't convince me of FET, it just convinced me to check a few things out and think for myself, and FET was the unavoidable conclusion.

When you check things out for yourself, do you feel you have enough grasp of the underlying science to make informed decisions? Have you talked with geologists or physicists about why they espouse what they do?

RET practising what it preaches. When the scientific method starts to be followed and that starts to lead towards RET rather than away, with some replicable discovery, then that'll be a cue to re-examine.

Can you give me an example of "RET science" not following the scientific method?

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2019, 04:00:17 PM »
You'll have to quantify "nearly every," which I'll assume to be 95%+, and then explain to me how natural sciences like biology, chemistry, zoology, and botany depend upon a globe. I'm assuming, too, that you aren't including social or formal sciences such as anthropology and logic, respectively.

Correct, not sociology, etc. If FE is correct, then astrophysics is entirely incorrect. Stellar physics would be entirely wrong, and stellar physics is one of the most oddly simplistic sciences there is. If it's wrong, our entire understanding of physics at the atomic level is also wrong. All elements heavier than helium are formed in stars, but if we have that wrong, then we don't know where elements come from, and the very basis of physics needs to be rewritten.

Tectonic plates don't make sense in a FE model, so the idea of continental drift either has to be rewritten or discarded entirely. Without continental drift you have to rewrite evolution because identical fossils found in South America and Africa either are no longer related or they migrated in unheard of ways. If evolution works differently that we have come to understand, then genetics doesn't work as we understand, and we have to re-examine biology.

I could go on. I doubt if there's a single hard science that would remain unaltered. But that's the issue you're facing. I agree with you that, ignoring everything else, a flat earth makes much more sense than a globe. A caveman would never even entertain the idea that the world is a globe. It would be ridiculous. But once you start millions of tests that start shedding light on the mechanisms behind millions of interactions in the world, and start forming rules and theories that start to explain how those mechanisms work, and all of those theories are consistent with each other, you can no long can no longer choose one observation and say it must be true because it feels true. That observation is linked to millions of tests and theories. If you want to upset that one observation, you have to also upset all the science that's consistent with it - And that demands the extraordinary proof we've been talking about.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2019, 04:05:47 PM »
Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done.

My apologies. I skipped over this part and I didn't mean to ignore your research. Can you tell me a little about it?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2019, 06:03:45 PM »
When you check things out for yourself, do you feel you have enough grasp of the underlying science to make informed decisions? Have you talked with geologists or physicists about why they espouse what they do?
I look at what's offered and don't rush into decisions. Where possible I've used the myriad existing resources to check in with people who've studied the various areas to say if there is any explanation for the flaws, it's never more than "That's just how it is." That's one of the key flaws with modern science; it stops being about why anything happens, just what they need to happen to fit it into their framework. While that's understandable, it doesn't change the fact that a system that can't answer 'why' is not a good one.

Quote
Can you give me an example of "RET science" not following the scientific method?
You can look at the self-proclaimed champions and defenders of it for that, even big names using FET for diss tracks rather than even taking a look, the way they acrry on you'd think we didn't even know why things fell. On a more systemic level, there's how it's become ruled by tradition, things stop being questioned or open to refinement. Students learn by rote, skipping over understanding how anything happens until the model is hammered into their head, and they can't progress to the level where their input would be respected until they spend yet more years reciting the party line back. If you don't accept the mainstream, they don't want you. Victory by familiarity, models that you're used to don't seem absurd while new things do, regardless of how their contents actually compare.
For more direct examples:
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/47/food
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2019, 06:20:50 PM »
I completely disagree that higher education - at least in Engineering or other B.S. degrees (like physics or mathematics) - learns by rote. I remember quite clearly going through mathematical proofs of all the equations we used to determine some engineering result in all of my college courses. We were required to have an understanding of how things worked, not just the here is an equation, plug in a number and get a result approach. I even remember my Calc classes in high school doing the same thing.

Who knows - maybe they do things differently where you are from, or things have changed since I went to college? Or maybe you are just projecting a biased opinion and have no actual evidence of your claim...
BobLawBlah.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2019, 07:06:51 PM »
I look at what's offered and don't rush into decisions. Where possible I've used the myriad existing resources to check in with people who've studied the various areas to say if there is any explanation for the flaws, it's never more than "That's just how it is." That's one of the key flaws with modern science; it stops being about why anything happens, just what they need to happen to fit it into their framework. While that's understandable, it doesn't change the fact that a system that can't answer 'why' is not a good one.

If you're talking with scientists who answer your questions with "That's just how it is," find different scientists because the ones you're talking to are doing a disservice to everyone.

My question was more about whether you feel qualified to judge the veracity of the claims of scientists. You answered that when you have checked, you've gotten non-answers. That's not exactly the same thing. Most people dramatically overestimate how good they are at judging scientific issues. It doesn't help when scientists are dismissive like the ones you've talked with.

You can look at the self-proclaimed champions and defenders of it for that, even big names using FET for diss tracks rather than even taking a look, the way they acrry on you'd think we didn't even know why things fell.

I'm asking because all the scientists I know of that are conducting science that's consistent with a global Earth are using the scientific method with excruciating rigor. I'm asking if you could point me toward some scientists or science that isn't based on the scientific method.

On a more systemic level, there's how it's become ruled by tradition, things stop being questioned or open to refinement. Students learn by rote, skipping over understanding how anything happens until the model is hammered into their head, and they can't progress to the level where their input would be respected until they spend yet more years reciting the party line back. If you don't accept the mainstream, they don't want you. Victory by familiarity, models that you're used to don't seem absurd while new things do, regardless of how their contents actually compare.
For more direct examples:
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/47/food

As someone who has worked with hundreds of scientists and graduate students in the sciences, and has children of my own pursuing sciences, I can assure you this is not the case. No scientist wants to go along with the herd. The scientist that breaks the paradigm like Darwin or Einstein would have their name in the history books and a Nobel Prize to boot. Do you have to understand all that has been done before in your field? Absolutely. But once you know what has been done, you can strike out in new directions. But someone who only knows a little bit will only think they're striking out in new and paradigm-breaking directions. They won't be aware of how many people have already thought those thoughts and pursued that line of reason.

There may be some schools that simply demand science students conform, but they are in the vast, vast minority (and frankly, they'd have no alumni that have done anything of note). I don't think this is a line of reasoning you can support.