[Pinky]

I have two major issues with Flat Earth-research:



1.
An argument I see over and over again is "Earth/planets/sky/sun/nightsky do not like I expected them to look, therefore the observation must be false."
This is literally a prescientific medieval mindset, where theory is given priority over experiment. How come nobody is calling this out?

How come that this community prides itself in not believing what they are told and only believing what you have measured, and then they turn around and dismiss a measurement because they don't like the result?



2.
Why do we accept the premise that there is a RE-conspiracy? The only purpose of this conspiracy-theory is to serve as an excuse to dismiss measurements and data Flat-Earthers don't like.
* The existence of this conspiracy has never been proven in any way, neither by objective evidence nor by witnesses. It is entirely hypothetical.
* The mere probability of such a conspiracy existing without getting revealed over time is astronomically low. (There is a scientific paper that can model how long different types of conspiracies can stay hidden before a whistleblower reveals them.)

Why do we shape our research around a premise that is 100% unproven and that is next to impossible to even exist?
Why do Flat-Earthers rather believe in something that is 100% unproven rather than accept the possibility that the photo is real and that their opinion is wrong?




I was over in the other forum. I have met people who literally believe in magic, I have met people who believe that ancient civilizations were technologically more advanced than we are, I have met people who claimed to have received visions from the future and that therefore their statements are the absolute truth and beyond doubt.



I will furthermore refuse to humor Flat-Earthers by engaging with them in a scientific debate that is premised on a religion that they invented for the purpose of tilting scientific debates in their favor. And neither should other Round-Earthers.

Religious bias has no place in scientific research.

If Flat-Earthers want to research the shape of Earth, first they must check whether the premises of their models are even valid.

[Pete Svarrior]

An argument I see over and over again is "Earth/planets/sky/sun/nightsky do not like I expected them to look, therefore the observation must be false."

Have you seen that here verbatim, or is it your indirect interpretation of something someone said? That doesn't seem like something this community would support.

Why do we accept the premise that there is a RE-conspiracy? The only purpose of this conspiracy-theory is to serve as an excuse to dismiss measurements and data Flat-Earthers don't like.

There is no such thing as a RE conspiracy. There is some evidence of a space-travel conspiracy. It's not conclusive, but it does exist. In any case, a belief in the Conspiracy is not a pre-requisite for FET.

I was over in the other forum.

My condolences. The "other forum" has been all but abandoned by serious contributors and has mostly been used by people who wish to satirise us. I would have serious doubts about anything you've read there.

I will furthermore refuse to humor Flat-Earthers by engaging with them in a scientific debate that is premised on a religion that they invented for the purpose of tilting scientific debates in their favor. And neither should other Round-Earthers.

A brief pointer on how things work around here. If you don't want to talk to someone, don't. Nobody's forcing you to contribute. However, making vapid posts about how you refuse to contribute helps nobody, and only serves to make valuable content more difficult to find. If you want to complain about people you don't like (for whatever reason), please do so in Angry Ranting. I'm sure you made your post in good faith, but it technically doesn't belong in the FET board.

[Pinky]

An argument I see over and over again is "Earth/planets/sky/sun/nightsky do not like I expected them to look, therefore the observation must be false."

Have you seen that here verbatim, or is it your indirect interpretation of something someone said? That doesn't seem like something this community would support.

Why do we accept the premise that there is a RE-conspiracy? The only purpose of this conspiracy-theory is to serve as an excuse to dismiss measurements and data Flat-Earthers don't like.

There is no such thing as a RE conspiracy. There is some evidence of a space-travel conspiracy. It's not conclusive, but it does exist. In any case, a belief in the Conspiracy is not a pre-requisite for FET.

I was over in the other forum.

My condolences. The "other forum" has been all but abandoned by serious contributors and has mostly been used by people who wish to satirise us. I would have serious doubts about anything you've read there.

I will furthermore refuse to humor Flat-Earthers by engaging with them in a scientific debate that is premised on a religion that they invented for the purpose of tilting scientific debates in their favor. And neither should other Round-Earthers.

A brief pointer on how things work around here. If you don't want to talk to someone, don't. Nobody's forcing you to contribute. However, making vapid posts about how you refuse to contribute helps nobody, and only serves to make valuable content more difficult to find. If you want to complain about people you don't like (for whatever reason), please do so in Angry Ranting. I'm sure you made your post in good faith, but it technically doesn't belong in the FET board.

This OP right here, posted 3 days ago.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10490.0
He thinks that the photos of other planets must be fake because they are different from what he expects other planets to look like.



A believe in "some" unproven conspiracy is obviously necessary for FE.



And my point about refusing to humor Flat-Earthers means simply that a scientific discussion about evidence is meaningless if one side gets to cherry-pick (a priori and a posteriori) which evidence counts and which doesn't count.
How are we supposed to have a scientific debate if one side dismisses selected evidence as facsimiles created by a conspiracy without providing evidence that they indeed were facsimiles created by a conspiracy?

[Pete Svarrior]

Your interpretation of JRowe's post is extremely discourteous, and, dare I say, untrue to his intention. We can't have a debate if your objection is to straw men.

You also don't get to decide what is "obvious" about FET. Isn't it a bit strange that you're willing to dismiss my point on what we believe in favour of what you think we obviously believe?

[Pinky]

Your interpretation of JRowe's post is extremely discourteous, and, dare I say, untrue to his intention. We can't have a debate if your objection is to straw men.

You also don't get to decide what is "obvious" about FET. Isn't it a bit strange that you're willing to dismiss my point on what we believe in favour of what you think we obviously believe?

He sets criteria for what foreign planets should look like without explaining why those should be criteria.

My point is as follows:
Flat-Earthers reserve the right to dismiss certain evidence as fake, based on the unproven hypothesis that someone has faked evidence.

A scientific discussion is not possible if one side can dismiss evidence at will. There should be an objective process for the admittal and dismissal of evidence.

[Rushy]

I'm confused, the title talks about religious biases, but none of the examples you put forward have mentioned religion; our wiki doesn't mention religion as a basis for our theories, either. What sort of religious bias are you specifically referring to?

[Bad Puppy]

A scientific discussion is not possible if one side can dismiss evidence at will. There should be an objective process for the admittal and dismissal of evidence.

That sounds like a great idea.  But below is a good reason why it'll probably never work.

It's not off topic. It is important for the topic to understand that the Geometry of the Ancient Greeks is simply wrong, and does not reflect reality. Zeno’s paradox alone leads to the conclusion that space is quantized, and therefore circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

[Dr Van Nostrand]

I'm confused, the title talks about religious biases, but none of the examples you put forward have mentioned religion; our wiki doesn't mention religion as a basis for our theories, either. What sort of religious bias are you specifically referring to?

I noticed that too. But, I think if you interpret the word 'religious' as accepting something merely on faith, the post works. It would say that the FET community accepts certain principles simply given as matters of faith based on their personal perceptions. They could argue it that way.

[Rushy]

I'm confused, the title talks about religious biases, but none of the examples you put forward have mentioned religion; our wiki doesn't mention religion as a basis for our theories, either. What sort of religious bias are you specifically referring to?

I noticed that too. But, I think if you interpret the word 'religious' as accepting something merely on faith, the post works. It would say that the FET community accepts certain principles simply given as matters of faith based on their personal perceptions. They could argue it that way.

Sounds like your interpretation requires a bit of faith. "The OP makes sense if you interpret in a way that isn't the way OP wrote it" is a great way to misunderstand what people mean.

[Pete Svarrior]

He sets criteria for what foreign planets should look like without explaining why those should be criteria.

And how do you go from that to the following:

My point is as follows:
Flat-Earthers reserve the right to dismiss certain evidence as fake, based on the unproven hypothesis that someone has faked evidence.

?

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with her (as I happen to). But your logic does not follow.

A scientific discussion is not possible if one side can dismiss evidence at will. There should be an objective process for the admittal and dismissal of evidence.

You don't need to restate your claim. What you need to do is substantiate it.

[TomInAustin]

I will furthermore refuse to humor Flat-Earthers by engaging with them in a scientific debate that is premised on a religion that they invented for the purpose of tilting scientific debates in their favor. And neither should other Round-Earthers.

Religious bias has no place in scientific research.

If Flat-Earthers want to research the shape of Earth, first they must check whether the premises of their models are even valid.

I think you missed the point of being here.  First off, no one's mind is going to be changed by any presentation of fact or science.  Either way.  Most RE people that stay around here are doing it as a thought experiment, ways to look at things we had not thought of, new ways to explain things to ourselves.  Plus its damn entertaining.

So post or don't, no one is really going to care. 

[Pete Svarrior]

I think you missed the point of being here.  First off, no one's mind is going to be changed by any presentation of fact or science.  Either way.

The continuous growth of the FE movement suggests otherwise.

[Bad Puppy]

I think you missed the point of being here.  First off, no one's mind is going to be changed by any presentation of fact or science.  Either way.

The continuous growth of the FE movement suggests otherwise.

Or it suggests that their minds can be changed by explicitly ignoring the presentation of facts or science.

[Rushy]

I think you missed the point of being here.  First off, no one's mind is going to be changed by any presentation of fact or science.  Either way.

The continuous growth of the FE movement suggests otherwise.

Or it suggests that their minds can be changed by explicitly ignoring the presentation of facts or science.

After actually taking a very good look at your avatar the mod team has decided it's inappropriate. Please change it, or it will be changed for you. Warned.

[Bad Puppy]

How about now?  I think it should be less offensive than that glacial formation I had (I think it was part of the south pole ice wall.  No wonder nobody comes back from there.)

[TomInAustin]

I think you missed the point of being here.  First off, no one's mind is going to be changed by any presentation of fact or science.  Either way.

The continuous growth of the FE movement suggests otherwise.

While tempted to go to AR to respond I'll just say... good one

[QED]

I think you missed the point of being here.  First off, no one's mind is going to be changed by any presentation of fact or science.  Either way.

The continuous growth of the FE movement suggests otherwise.

This is an application of the ad populum fallacy, which states that a claim is not true by virtue of the number of people who believe it or the rate at which interest is growing.

[Pete Svarrior]

This is an application of the ad populum fallacy, which states that a claim is not true by virtue of the number of people who believe it or the rate at which interest is growing.

No, it isn't. The claim is that no one is convinced. The fact that the number of people convinced is continuously growing directly disproves this claim.

[QED]

This is an application of the ad populum fallacy, which states that a claim is not true by virtue of the number of people who believe it or the rate at which interest is growing.

No, it isn't. The claim is that no one is convinced. The fact that the number of people convinced is continuously growing directly disproves this claim.

If the claim is that no one is convinced, then the rebuttal is trivial. I am convinced. Hence, I have demonstrated a proof by contradiction.

[Bad Puppy]

This is an application of the ad populum fallacy, which states that a claim is not true by virtue of the number of people who believe it or the rate at which interest is growing.

No, it isn't. The claim is that no one is convinced. The fact that the number of people convinced is continuously growing directly disproves this claim.

If the claim is that no one is convinced, then the rebuttal is trivial. I am convinced. Hence, I have demonstrated a proof by contradiction.

The claim that the FE movement is growing is different than the claim that FE interest is growing.  Interest does not indicate they're part of the movement.  I'd like to see Tom's evidence of this FE movement growth.  Any charts with sources, Tom?