[supaluminus]

Very simply put, no one has to address the conspiracy claims in order to demonstrate why the flat earth model is not consistent with reality. Happy to discuss the conspiracy claims in another thread and show you why THEY fall flat for totally different reasons, but right now I want to hash this out and demonstrate the hypothesis in the title:

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

Once we take the time to actually demonstrate why this is, the only response proponents can retreat to is hand-waving about conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm not knocking the conspiratorial elements utterly - certainly there's all kinds of things the elites and the authorities keep hidden from us for one reason or another, however sinister or mundane. All I'm saying is that THIS isn't one of those conspiracies.

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model. It is only rational to then assume that whichever model we call "true" must therefore not only be logically consistent, but also exhibit few internal contradictions.

As a gesture of good will, I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation. Happy to debate those claims with you another time, but for the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

[Tom Bishop]

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

[KAL_9000]

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

I think the OP is saying they want this to be completely unrelated to conspiracy theories. You may talk about them in a different thread, but not this one, I guess.

[supaluminus]

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

Irrespective of a conspiracy, you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist whether there is a conspiracy or not.

And what you said is a bit vague. How would you demonstrate the flat earth model in any way other than A ) scientific observation, or B ) invoking conspiracy to explain gaps in information?

In this case I’m just asking that we stick to the science. Again, how much you trust or distrust the powers that be is irrelevant.

Another way to look at it: If I’m holding a lighter in my pocket, and we know this lighter is real, but I refuse to show you that lighter, you can allege conspiracy until you’re blue in the face - the lighter doesn’t give a shit about your opinion.

[Tom Bishop]

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

[supaluminus]

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

Sorry for the delayed edit. I’ll respond to this and anything else you want to say, if you want to respond to my edits in the last reply.

[Tom Bishop]

And what you said is a bit vague. How would you demonstrate the flat earth model in any way other than A ) scientific observation, or B ) invoking conspiracy to explain gaps in information?

I gave you a scientific observation.

In this case I’m just asking that we stick to the science. Again, how much you trust or distrust the powers that be is irrelevant.

Another way to look at it: If I’m holding a lighter in my pocket, and we know this lighter is real, but I refuse to show you that lighter, you can allege conspiracy until you’re blue in the face - the lighter doesn’t give a shit about your opinion.

If we are looking at a lighter, then we must conclude that it is a lighter. It is actually the burden of the naysayers who are saying that the lighter is actually something else in disguise who will have to show otherwise.

We are Empiricists. We make direct conclusions from the world. The Round Earthers are Rationalists. The model is rationalized into existence. "Um, well, a really big ball would look flat..." That is a rationalization against empirical reality, not evidence.

This is where the conversation starts. Now it is on you to post your evidence.

[supaluminus]

I gave you a scientific observation.

Yeah. You’re responding to an edit I made before I read that observation - looking out the window and so forth.

Your initial response - the one the edit was responding to - is quoted in that same post, so I think you knew what I was talking about, unless you aren’t reading.

Lets clear up that confusion right now for the sake of other readers and move on.

If we are looking at a lighter, then we must conclude that it is a lighter. It is actually the burden of the naysayers who are saying that the lighter is actually something else in disguise who will have to show otherwise.

You’re half right.

The first part, you’re correct. It’s an incomplete analogy.

If I’m NASA, and the lighter is the globe earth, and you refuse to believe it’s there, you’re under no obligation to just take my word for it. Nobody would blame you for saying something like, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” That’s only rational. Here’s the problem.

If you just stop there, and don’t add more information to the analogy, it’s reasonable for you to at least take the agnostic position - “I don’t know/I’ll believe it when I see it” - as you presently do. Frankly, that bolded half of the quote is more solipsism than agnosticism, but I digress...

With nothing but you, me, and my claim about a lighter, as I said, you’re under no obligation to believe me.

But just like globe earth, or any claim for that matter, if you just stop at the claim, you aren’t getting the full picture.

How might your opinion about the lighter change, for instance, if you and I are co-workers, and you’ve seen me smoking, and you’ve smelled the ash and the tar on me when I come back from breaks, and you hear me coughing of early onset emphysema, and you know my other smoker friends? Bear in mind; you still have never actually seen me use or show the lighter, you only have my claim and the circumstantial evidence... also I don’t smoke in real life, but this is just a thought experiment, I’m a smoker and we’re co-workers in it, work with me.

Add to this that there are other people in the office who know both of us. They also know what you know because they’ve seen it and smelled it and heard it as well. They’re also aware that I say there’s a lighter in my pocket, and most of them believe it. You know this because they’ve told you so; you still haven’t seen the lighter with your own eyes.

Once again, you're still under no obligation to believe my positive claim about a lighter in my pocket. However, once we add the context of all of this circumstantial evidence, suddenly your position of “I’ll believe it when I see it" doesn't seem quite as rational as it did before we took a look at all the evidence.

After we finally have a complete picture, or at least a more complete picture than we had previously, do you still feel as certain in your disbelief - or at the very least, agnostic dismissal - of my claim that there’s a lighter in my pocket? What do you think your odds are of being correct if you say I’m wrong, versus simply taking my word for it?

Of course, I could always be lying, but unless we’re two friends and I’m playing perhaps the lamest April Fools joke ever, you’re going to start grasping at straws and alleging all kinds of things to try and rationalize some kind of motive, so you can then ascribe it to me as an post-rational explanation for wanting to lie about the lighter. At that point, we’re treading down the path of conspiratorial thinking. I have plenty to say on that subject as well, but as I said, that’s not the topic of this thread. More importantly, it’s completely irrelevant to the question of how we compare and contrast the two models against reality and each other - or the evidence that there's a lighter in my pocket, versus a grenade, for that matter.

Again, you can apply this frame of thinking to just about ANY truth claim. Clearly we believe things even if we don’t have direct proof in front of our eyes, and that’s not irrational.

So I say again, you’re right with respect to my analogy in its original form... but you’re wrong for stopping there, just as you’re wrong for simply stopping at the authoritative claim about the globe model.

Your second part about the burden of proof is also half right.

In general, anyone making any claim, positive or negative, carries a burden of proof. It’s just considered good etiquette to not force someone else into making a positive claim before the first one has been fully vetted.

When you say, “The earth IS a flat, motionless plane in a dome,” and I say, “The earth IS NOT a flat, motionless plane in a dome,” those are two competing claims. The former is positive, the latter negative - naysayers, etc.. At that point, you don’t have to DISPROVE globe earth, you just have to PROVE flat earth. Likewise, I don’t have to PROVE globe earth, I just have to DISPROVE flat earth.

When you make a positive claim, your job is to present evidence supporting your hypothesis. My job, by contrast, is to point out inconsistencies, incongruencies, and other things that complicate or otherwise cast doubt on your hypothesis. You may object to my objections and so on, but the idea is - at least in an HONEST dialogue - I am only playing the role of skeptic so that we can challenge the strength of your claim. Likewise, we may switch roles to challenge the strength of my claims, and so on. In that process, we may in fact go over some information that IMPLIES the inverse - me making the positive claim and you negative, or vice versa - but this is incidental and unavoidable in a binary polar dichotomy, and so irrelevant to the initial claim.

Like I said, it's simply considered good etiquette to observe the initial positive-negative dichotomy and do things one at a time, not turn the tables on a dime in a vain attempt to trip up your opponent. You're free to ignore that just as readily as you are to deny the globe earth model.

But, in general, when you make a claim, you should stick to providing supporting evidence until it has all been ferreted out and fitfully scrutinized. That only makes sense for the sake of having a structured, productive conversation. To turn around and say to your opponent, “Well tell me why the earth IS a round, oblate sphere spinning on its axis in a void, Mr. Smarty Pants,” would be nothing short of premature (and immature, in that context and most times this writer has observed people fail to avoid this particular fallacy).

So again, you’re right when you say that the burden of proof rests on the naysayers... you’re wrong to forget that it rests first on the proclaimers.

As for the grenade analogy, that goes back to invoking conspiracy.

You’re saying the grenade represents your claim that there’s a conspiracy, and the “lighter” and me are therefore dangerous and not to be trusted. This is what you mean, no? Correct me if I’m missing something; I want to communicate effectively and be sure I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not here to fuck with you.

If I’m correct, this aspect of the analogy which you’ve added is, I’m afraid, nothing to do with presenting evidence that the earth IS a flat, motionless plane beneath a dome, nor is it defending against objections that it IS NOT.

And caveat: I have no idea what YOU personally believe about the flat earth model, I just used those descriptions as an example.

Would you like to move on to a discussion about your observations regarding the horizon?

[supaluminus]

And sorry for the shitty edits and citations. I’m working on cleaning it up... bear with me I’m doing this on a 5-inch touch screen lol

[supaluminus]

Gonna add this here since I didn't see it when I was writing my reply to your original post.

We are Empiricists. We make direct conclusions from the world. The Round Earthers are Rationalists. The model is rationalized into existence. "Um, well, a really big ball would look flat..." That is a rationalization against empirical reality, not evidence.

Except it's not, and neither your definition of "empirical reality" nor "rationalists" is accurate. For it to be empirical reality, it would have to be consistent with everything we observe in empirical reality. It isn't, and I can demonstrate why just as soon as you put forward either A ) Your evidence for a flat earth, or B ) Your objections to evidence for a globe earth WITHOUT invoking conspiracy.

It's not rationalization either. People rationalize after the fact, usually in order to explain or excuse contradictions so that they become easier to ignore. The horizon being flat to our eyes neither contradicts the globe model nor confirms the flat model. In reality, this ONE aspect would be consistent with both models. But, just like the example with the lighter, this example needs more information.

In the case of your assertion that the flat horizon contradicts the globe earth model, the horizon only appears that way UNTIL you understand the limits of your own perspective as a 6-foot tall bipedal fucked up monkey living on a giant ball. Scrutinizing further, we can talk about things like why you can't see France from New York for example, or why objects dip past the horizon, but the objection about the horizon itself is not a contradiction of the globe model. You don't have to "believe" it in order to comprehend how it works once you have enough information added to the equation.

Rationalization is only a problem when you're trying to rationalize something that contradicts your model, like when flat earthers try to rationalize the curvature of the earth by pretending that distant objects disappearing can be explained by the vanishing point.

I explained why THAT particular objection isn't valid in another thread, and we can get to that in a minute, but in the meantime, let's be 100% clear about the meaning of words like "empiricism" and "rationalization" and not just fling them around like our own dung at the zoo. I think we'd both like to believe we're better than that.

This is where the conversation starts. Now it is on you to post your evidence.

The terms in the original post are quite clear:

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model...

... I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation... [For] the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

To be fair, the above is an edit of the original post, but I haven't changed it radically by any stretch. Go and check it yourself and tell me if you have any objections.

The simple fact of the matter is that we're not beginning with me making a truth claim, we're beginning with an invitation from me for you to try and demonstrate and/or defend your model with a few caveats:

1 ) You cannot invoke conspiracy.

2 ) I cannot use NASA or other government space agencies in citations of photographic and video evidence.

THIS is where the conversation begins.

I ask once more, would you care to discuss the flat earth model and how it is or isn't consistent with reality? We can start with your first mention of looking outside, or the objection to the issue of limited perspective on a giant ball. It's really up to you. Submit your best, most compelling evidence, as much as you like, and we'll go through each exhibit one by one.

[inquisitive]

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

And I see the sun move across the sky, as does everyone else, and the path proves a round earth.  As shown by timeanddate.com

[AATW]

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

Your own Wiki agrees that if the observer is high enough then you can see a curve

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

The FE explanation is "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light. The observer is looking down at a circle".
The real world explanation of course is that the earth is a globe.

Point being, if even in your model you accept that you see a curve from high altitude so why can't you see it from the ground? Why in your model can't you see the "circular area of the sun's light"?
The answer is obvious: scale.

So looking out of my window even if I could see the horizon (which I can't, I can see Big Ben and the London Eye if you're interested) it wouldn't demonstrate a flat earth.
It wouldn't demonstrate a globe either. The earth could be a cube. Looking out of my window doesn't demonstrate anything. I have to look at other evidence.

[Macarios]

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

Old transparent trick.

Out your window you see REAL Earth, not flat one.
It can seem flat only if you don't have access to higher spot.
Earth is huge and within 3 miles around you it might seem flat.
Without hills horizon is circle around you, and you are in the center.
Horizon dip is equal in every direction, and if your eyes are 5.5 feet from the ground, the dip is about 2.5 arcminutes.
Look at hula-hoop from its center and it will look flat as well.

If your eyes are 130 feet above the ground (my apartment is at 14th floor), horizon is 14 miles away, and horizon dip is 12.1 arcminutes.
You don't need any zoom to see objects 10 miles away, hidden by horizon when you are down to 5.5 feet.

[totallackey]

A planetarium is a perfect example of a flat earth with the celestial sphere overhead.

[Ratboy]

A planetarium is a perfect example of how the night sky should look if the earth was flat and the celestial whatever was a dome.  Sit on one side when they are showing the moon.  Use your fingers from a certain distance from your eye to check how big it is.  Move to the other side and see how big this moon looks now.  When you go to a planetarium the operator often says "for this show I recommend sitting in -whatever seats- to get the best view.

[Tom Bishop]

As for the grenade analogy, that goes back to invoking conspiracy.

You’re saying the grenade represents your claim that there’s a conspiracy, and the “lighter” and me are therefore dangerous and not to be trusted. This is what you mean, no? Correct me if I’m missing something; I want to communicate effectively and be sure I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not here to fuck with you.

The analogy relates to the observation of the earth.

We look out the window and see that the earth is flat. Therefore the conclusion is that the earth is flat until evidence has been presented otherwise. If you are saying that the earth is actually something else, then the burden is on you to show that.

In the case of your assertion that the flat horizon contradicts the globe earth model, the horizon only appears that way UNTIL you understand the limits of your own perspective as a 6-foot tall bipedal fucked up monkey living on a giant ball.

Again, the observation says that the earth is flat. Your assertion that it might really be a giant ball, it's just that we can't see it, is a rationalization against an empirical observation. The evidence is still that the earth is flat.

I ask once more, would you care to discuss the flat earth model and how it is or isn't consistent with reality? We can start with your first mention of looking outside, or the objection to the issue of limited perspective on a giant ball. It's really up to you. Submit your best, most compelling evidence, as much as you like, and we'll go through each exhibit one by one.

Well, I submitted something -- that we see that the earth is flat -- and so far your only remark is that it *might* be a giant ball or something. It *might* also be a giant torus. We don't give a hoot about "might". We care only about "is". The fact of the matter is that it is evidence that the earth is flat, and not evidence for any of those other things.

[Tom Bishop]

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

Your own Wiki agrees that if the observer is high enough then you can see a curve

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

The FE explanation is "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light. The observer is looking down at a circle".
The real world explanation of course is that the earth is a globe.

Point being, if even in your model you accept that you see a curve from high altitude so why can't you see it from the ground? Why in your model can't you see the "circular area of the sun's light"?
The answer is obvious: scale.

So looking out of my window even if I could see the horizon (which I can't, I can see Big Ben and the London Eye if you're interested) it wouldn't demonstrate a flat earth.
It wouldn't demonstrate a globe either. The earth could be a cube. Looking out of my window doesn't demonstrate anything. I have to look at other evidence.

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

From a high altitude reference point at the edge of the atmosphere we might see some slight curvature, but as explained in the article, the observation is consistent with the idea of looking down at a circle. This means that you will have to try to come up with some other kind of evidence that the earth is round.

[AATW]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
In the same way that looking at white swans may lead you to think that all swans are white (see Black Swan theory).
But we worked out as a species millennia ago that we are living on a globe.
The next natural assumption is that the earth is the centre of everything and the sun and moon and stars all go around us.
But then through observations of retrograde motion of planets it was realised that we aren't.
Our understanding of the universe and our true place in it has evolved over time as we have made more observations and developed better instruments to do so.
Some dude writing in the Victorian era who thought that the moon is semi-transparent and emits cold light hasn't, amazingly, rocked the scientific community to the core.

[Tom Bishop]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

[KAL_9000]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe, not a circle.

And don't give me the "round-Earth derived distances" excuse either. These distances are measured, not extrapolated!