[Roundabout]

Thus saith the Wiki:

Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

The problem with this is that our explanations of different phenomena have to be mutually consistent. We don’t just want to explain observation A; we also want to explain observations B, C, D, E, F,…, infinity. And if our explanations aren’t consistent with one another, then at least one of them must be false.

Mainstream (round-earth) astronomy and physics consist of sets of mutually consistent theories that have enormous explanatory power. They successfully explain literally billions of observations; that’s why they’re mainstream. Yes, there are questions that are still unanswered, but there are always frontiers in science. Mainstream physics and astronomy are also consistent with our current understanding of other areas of science, such as chemistry and biology. It’s all one package. For example, you can’t shrink the age of the earth from 4.5 billion years to 6,000 years and remain consistent with modern biology and physics, and you can’t have the sun and moon circling above a flat earth without some serious revisions of physics.

FET requires tossing out most of mainstream astronomy and large swaths of physics, so if flat-earthers wish to be taken seriously by scientists, they need to come up with an alternative set of mutually consistent theories that explain everything covered by mainstream science at least as well MS does. The RET versus FET question really boils down to which theory and its associated set of theories offer better (and according to Occam’s Razor, simpler) explanations of the whole gamut of observations, not just of an isolated observation such as seeing a beach across X miles of ocean. And FET has not come anywhere near offering such a set of theories.

From the same Wiki page:

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 straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Again, the best explanation for the reports of space exploration, satellites, photos from space, etc., is the one that is the most consistent with our other explanations of what we observe and experience. For example, it should be consistent with how we explain some personal observations of mine that can be replicated by anyone who will visit my university:

(1) A personal acquaintance of 25 years, and a straight arrow if I have ever known one, says publicly that he was aboard one of the Space Shuttle missions, and I don't know of anyone who disputes it. He has continued to do and publish research in the field of satellite remote sensing for many years.

(2) My boss says he designed the first space-borne radar system (for SkyLab), and this is not disputed by any of his colleagues. He has published hundreds of papers and a couple of books in the field of satellite remote sensing.

(3) Various friends and coworkers are either designing satellite component systems, such as radar and radiometer systems, or are doing research based on data received from satellites, or are designing data-processing systems for such data, plus the fact that there are dozens if not hundreds more people doing space-related design and research within a block of my workplace.

True, these are just my personal observations (although I’d be happy to introduce flat-earthers to any of these people – I’d love to hear the ensuing conversation). But these observations can be replicated at most universities with good electrical engineering and space sciences departments. In addition, we have plenty of other evidence of satellite-related research being carried out, such as one may find in such journals as those linked on this page: http://www.grss-ieee.org/ (scroll down a bit).

So the question is, which set of theories best explains all the observations that science attempts to explain: the RET set that says that this massive apparent research activity is actually being carried out, with real data being transmitted from real satellites, or the FET set of theories that features a Vast Fixed-Wing Conspiracy trying to con us into believing that space travel and exploration and satellite launches have actually taken place (no one knows how to get satellites to orbit a flat earth)? Your call.

[CableDawg]

If flat earthers really wanted to be take seriously, by scientists or any other person, all they would have to do is provide verifiable proof of their statements of "fact".

A relatively simple one would be for them to mount an expedition to the ice wall to perform mapping and measurement documentation.  According to FET this ice wall, which makes up the outer perimeter of the FE should have a coastline length on the order of 55,000 miles.

It really is an easy proof.  Either it really does have a coastline of ~55,000 miles or it really is Antarctica and has a coastline of ~11,000 miles.

The could even mount expeditions into the interior of the ice wall to take measurements of the demarcation point where the FE sun no longer casts light into the realm of the unknown.  For the daring FE explorer there is even the possibility of pushing past this demarcation point into the unknown itself.

Surely, across the entire planet, there are enough FE supporters to fund such an expedition.  Surely they would mount such an expedition if they found it to be a worthy use of their monies.

Hell, if they could provide verifiable proof such as listed above they wouldn't have to worry about funding because a good portion of the funds directed at mainstream science would be redirected to the endeavor of studying FE.

[juner]

A relatively simple one would be for them to mount an expedition to the ice wall to perform mapping and measurement documentation. 

>simple

Literally what?

[Rounder]

It is simple.  It may not be EASY but it is SIMPLE.  A child could understand the concept.  Here it is:

1. Start with a ship in South America.
2. Take that ship south to the ice.
2. Turn right.
3. Sail west along the ice a distance that would be 1/2 of the way around on a globe, measuring distance by triangulating landmarks on the ice (no celestial navigation, no GPS).
4. Turn right.
5. Sail north.

If the round earth map is correct, you should end up in Australia.  If the flat earth map is correct, you will still be in open water off South America and will reach North America eventually.

Repeat the test, but turn left at the ice.  Your halfway point will be pretty close to the icy landmark from the first test on a round earth, and nowhere near it on a flat earth.  Northern landfall will be Africa on a flat earth, but very nearly the same spot in Australia on a rond earth.

See?  Simple.

[CableDawg]

A relatively simple one would be for them to mount an expedition to the ice wall to perform mapping and measurement documentation. 

>simple

Literally what?

Literally, did you even read what I wrote and attempt to comprehend it?

Does FE theory, in some form or fashion, prevent the mounting of expeditions of discovery?

Do FE supporters believe that RE supporters should mount these expeditions for them?

Let's assume that FE supporters amount to about 0.001% of the Earth's entire population.  This would give a number of about 75,000 FE believers.  If all of those believers gave $50 (U.S.) or $100 (U.S.) to the cause the FE Society would have $3.75 - $7.5 million to mount the expedition stated above.  That amount of money should go a long way toward completing, if not completing, said expedition.

No where in what I wrote did I say anything about any single FE supporter mounting this expedition on their own with their own funds.  It really is simple, come together as a cohesive whole so that money, tools and knowledge can be/are pooled and therefore become a force which can effect change.

A group of like minded men did this 356 years ago when they founded the Royal Society.  Look how far we've come in such a short time since then because of them.  Look at how relatively little was learned and actually known prior to them.

[Pete Svarrior]

See?  Simple.

Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:

• Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
• Walk to the moon
• Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is

Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!

[Rounder]

See?  Simple.

Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:

• Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
• Walk to the moon
• Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is

Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!

So....I propose an experiment one could physically do.  You propose an experiment that neither side believes possible.

And YOU then laugh at ME.  Riiiiiiight.

[CableDawg]

See?  Simple.

Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:

• Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
• Walk to the moon
• Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is

Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!

Where has anyone made such an argument?

[rabinoz]

See?  Simple.

Here is an example of a round Earth proof that's just as simple (i.e. entirely impossible to actually attempt, but it's easy to write an edgy post about it) as your suggestion:

• Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
• Walk to the moon
• Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is

Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!

You pick absolute stupid simply because you are scared that your Pet Pepperoni Pizza Planet might get found out, but

On 6th November 2016 a number of sailors are going to start a race sail around Antarctica: 

So wait till a bit into 2017 and you will find out whether your "Ice Wall Map" is realistic!

VENDÉE GLOBE SOLO, NON STOP AND WITHOUT ASSISTANCE
The Vendée Globe is still the only non-stop solo round the world race without assistance. The event was created in the spirit of the Golden Globe, which was in 1968 the first non-stop solo round the world race via the three capes (Good Hope, Leeuwin and the Horn). Out of the nine pioneers, who set sail in 1968, only one made it back to Falmouth on 6th April 1969 after 313 days at sea, the British sailor, Robin Knox-Johnston. Sir Robin Knox-Johnston thus became the first sailor to sail alone around the world without stopping…
Twenty years later, the French sailor Philippe Jeantot, following on from his two wins in the BOC Challenge (the solo round the world race with stopovers), came up with the idea of a new solo round the world race, but this time a non-stop race. The Globe Challenge was born, and a few editions later this became the Vendée Globe. On 26th November 1989, thirteen sailors set off in this first edition, which would last more than three months. Only seven made it back to les Sables d’Olonne.
Since then, the first seven editions of what the public refers to as the Everest of the seas, have enabled 138 sailors to line up at the start of the Vendée Globe, while only 71 have managed to cross the finishing line. This figure alone expresses the huge difficulty of this global event, where sailors face icy cold conditions, mountainous waves and leaden skies in the Southern Ocean. The Vendée Globe is above all a voyage to the ends of the sea and deep down into the sailor’s soul. It has been won by some of the greatest names in sailing: Titouan Lamazou, Alain Gautier, Christophe Auguin, Vincent Riou and François Gabart. Only one sailor has won it twice: Michel Desjoyeaux, in 2001 and 2009. The race record is held by François Gabart with a time of 78 days.
The eighth Vendée Globe will set sail from les Sables d’Olonne on Sunday 6th November 2016.

From: Vendee Globe 2016-2017 Presentation

The 2012-2013 winner, François Gabart took just over 78 days for the whole race, sailing a total of 28,646.55 miles.

Route of 2016-2017 Vendée Globe

<<Photobucket died over to imgur>>

[Pete Svarrior]

So....I propose an experiment one could physically do.

Neither experiment is possible to accomplish in real life.

You propose an experiment that neither side believes possible.

Phew. I was worried I made it sound too plausible. I almost thought you'll just sit there being like "yep, this is reasonable, let's do it". After all, you did suggest your experiment...

And YOU then laugh at ME.  Riiiiiiight.

I didn't laugh at you, merely your argument.

Where has anyone made such an argument?

I strive to provide at least partial quotes before my replies in order to allow less attentive readers to connect the dots. Simply click the quote header above my response and you'll be taken to the relevant post.

You pick absolute stupid simply because you are scared that your Pet Pepperoni Pizza Planet might get found out

Would you mind speaking English? While you're at it, could you please stop abusing formatting? It doesn't make your posts any edgier or more convincing - they're just unpleasant to read, especially when you account for the fact that people view the forum on various devices.

Also, I take your complete lack of an actual response as a concession that Rounder's idea of "simplicity" was simply silly. Hopefully you won't waste our time with it again.

On 6th November 2016 a number of sailors are going to start a race sail around Antarctica:
So wait till a bit into 2017 and you will find out whether your "Ice Wall Map" is realistic!

Fascinating. You seem to think that proves something, or at least provides evidence of some sort. Care to elaborate?

[Ecthelion]

So the question is, which set of theories best explains all the observations that science attempts to explain: the RET set that says that this massive apparent research activity is actually being carried out, with real data being transmitted from real satellites, or the FET set of theories that features a Vast Fixed-Wing Conspiracy trying to con us into believing that space travel and exploration and satellite launches have actually taken place (no one knows how to get satellites to orbit a flat earth)? Your call.

You're of course right about Occam's razor. I have remarked that fact in several threads. Usually the result is stubborn silence from the FES-crowd. Sometimes someone will invoke "Zeteticism", but no-one has been able to tell me exactly what "Zeteticism" is or how it works.

Those FET adherents that are not outright trolls don't believe in the scientific method - and by extension Occam's razor - because reasons.

[Pete Svarrior]

no-one has been able to tell me exactly what "Zeteticism" is or how it works.

Have you tried Googling it?

• https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism
• http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zetetic
• http://praiseandlove.net/science-and-philosophy/flat-earth-theory/
• http://zeteticism.blogspot.co.uk/

Was that really so hard? Or are you saying that people have told you multiple times, and you simply didn't like it - because reasons?

Those FET adherents that are not outright trolls don't believe in the scientific method - and by extension Occam's razor - because reasons.

*sigh* - It's in the bloody OP.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor

[BlueMoon]

no-one has been able to tell me exactly what "Zeteticism" is or how it works.

Have you tried Googling it?

• https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism
• http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zetetic
• http://praiseandlove.net/science-and-philosophy/flat-earth-theory/
• http://zeteticism.blogspot.co.uk/

Was that really so hard? Or are you saying that people have told you multiple times, and you simply didn't like it - because reasons?

Those FET adherents that are not outright trolls don't believe in the scientific method - and by extension Occam's razor - because reasons.

*sigh* - It's in the bloody OP.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor

I think it says a lot about your "theory" that you have to invent an entire alternative to science for your model to even have a chance.  Thank god Zeteticism isn't the accepted methodology, or we would be whining about the horizon all the time instead of building satellites. 

[Pete Svarrior]

Yeah, fixing your broken system of inquiry makes us look really bad. No, seriously.

What was that about science adapting itself as new information becomes available? Why would you cling so dogmatically to a disproved system?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Yeah, fixing your broken system of inquiry makes us look really bad. No, seriously.

What was that about science adapting itself as new information becomes available? Why would you cling so dogmatically to a disproved system?

"Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out" -- http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method

There is a good reason why Zeteticism isn't widely practiced. The main way to prove or disprove a theory is by making predictions based on that theory, then setting up an experiment to test whether those predictions prove to be true or not. If the results of the experiment contradict the predictions, then the theory is false. If the results are consistent with the predictions, then that is evidence that the theory is correct.

A Zeteticist (is that the correct word?) can't do this. They have to generate a new theory from scratch after each and every experiment. If the same theory is generated after every experiment, then you can gain confidence that that theory is correct. However, if the theories aren't the same, there is no way to test inconsistencies between the theories. Are both theories true? Do they contradict each other? The only way to answer these questions is to make predictions based on the theories, and then test the predictions. A true Zeteticist can't do this.

This results in a large number of unrelated, weak theories to describe multiple observations. For example:
- Undescribed "Celestial gears" to explain the movement of stars in the southern hemisphere
- Undescribed atmospheric effects causes the sun to disappear behind the horizon.
- Undescribed atmospheric effects causes the sun to maintain brightness and size, despite it moving away from us.
- Spotlight shaped sun to explain timezones.
- Spherically shaped sun to explain the non-elliptical shape of the sun. Or "perspective". Depends who you ask.
- The moon must be flat in order to show the same phase to everyone at the same time.
- The moon must be spherical in order to show the same shape to everyone at the same time.
- Unexplained luminescence (moonshrimp?) to explain light from the moon.
- lots and lots of conspiracies to explain away all the contradicting photographic evidence from space.
- etc...

Compare that with theories generated by the scientific method that are required to explain the above observations:
- Newton's theory of gravity explains why the earth is spherical, why it is orbiting the sun, why the moon is orbiting the earth. This in turn explains: movement of the stars, movement of the sun, movement of the moon, phases of the moon, shape of the sun and moon, movement of the planets, timezones, etc...

This brings us back to the original point of this thread: Occam's Razor.

Which is more likely:
1. the theory that has a different sub-theory to explain away every contradicting observation, many of which aren't mutually consistent?
2. the theory that explains the same number of observations, with much fewer, mutually consistent theories? The theory that is a result of the same body of scientific knowledge that has successfully produced all other technological advances: airplanes, computers, medicine, etc...

So, which system of inquiry is really broken? Who is the one really clinging dogmatically to a broken system?

[Ecthelion]

Was that really so hard? Or are you saying that people have told you multiple times, and you simply didn't like it - because reasons?

Perhaps you'd like to try where others have failed? All I have received is evasive maneuvers and vague allusions. No-one has even bothered taking up a single one of my questions (the original ones, in the OP). If there is so much easily available on the subject, certainly it would be easy to answer my queries?

There is a good reason why Zeteticism isn't widely practiced. The main way to prove or disprove a theory is by making predictions based on that theory, then setting up an experiment to test whether those predictions prove to be true or not. If the results of the experiment contradict the predictions, then the theory is false. If the results are consistent with the predictions, then that is evidence that the theory is correct.

A Zeteticist (is that the correct word?) can't do this. They have to generate a new theory from scratch after each and every experiment. If the same theory is generated after every experiment, then you can gain confidence that that theory is correct. However, if the theories aren't the same, there is no way to test inconsistencies between the theories. Are both theories true? Do they contradict each other? The only way to answer these questions is to make predictions based on the theories, and then test the predictions. A true Zeteticist can't do this.

It's worse than that. You flat out cannot arrive at any conclusions by just piling up information. You can never gain knowledge based on random experiments - and without a hypothesis, randomness is all you get.

[TotesNotReptilian]

It's worse than that. You flat out cannot arrive at any conclusions by just piling up information. You can never gain knowledge based on random experiments - and without a hypothesis, randomness is all you get.

I wouldn't go quite that far. You CAN gain knowledge, to a certain extent. For example, if multiple observations happen to result in the same theory, then you can be increasingly confident in that theory. It is unreliable, but it IS possible to gain knowledge this way.

The main problem is that nothing is falsifiable. Once an observation leads to a theory, that theory can't be proven false. This leads to hundreds of weak little theories that only explain a single observation, but nothing else.

Edit: Sorry for being so pedantic. I am ashamed.

[CableDawg]

Where has anyone made such an argument?

I strive to provide at least partial quotes before my replies in order to allow less attentive readers to connect the dots. Simply click the quote header above my response and you'll be taken to the relevant post.

Partial or full quotes absolve you of making ignorant statements?

The post you partially quoted concerned an experiment which is well within the realm of possibility.

Your rebuttal to that post is based in the realm of impossibility.

So, since you've brought us back to this point, where has anyone made such an argument as that which you stated has been made?

[Ecthelion]

I wouldn't go quite that far. You CAN gain knowledge, to a certain extent. For example, if multiple observations happen to result in the same theory, then you can be increasingly confident in that theory. It is unreliable, but it IS possible to gain knowledge this way.

The main problem is that nothing is falsifiable. Once an observation leads to a theory, that theory can't be proven false. This leads to hundreds of weak little theories that only explain a single observation, but nothing else.

Edit: Sorry for being so pedantic. I am ashamed.

I don't think you're being pedantic. Precision is kinda important in discussions like this one.

My problem is this: Without a hpyothesis (explicit or implicit), you don't know what experiments to conduct. You don't know what the data will tell you. There is an unbridgeable gab between experience and understanding if you are not allowed to make guesses.

Imagine a scientist and a Zeteticist find themselves in a strange world where they don't know the rules. They need to make a fire for the night. The scientist makes the hypothesis that fire in this strange world works like it does in ours, i.e. an oxidisation process. He gathers some Fir (a type of tree) wood and heats it by rotating a stick. A flame occurs, but no warmth, and when the flame dies there is a pile of tiny hats. The scientist now knows that fire does not work like in the real world. After thinking on it for a long time, he notes that the words "heat" and "fir" contain the letters for "fire" and "hat". He guesses that in this world, reactions occur by combining words, not atoms. He goes out testing his hypothesis and finds that it fits with observations.

Meanwhile, the Zeteticist looks at the trees and the grass. He observes it looks basically like our world. He wants to make a fire, but concludes he has insufficient data to figure out how it works. He looks at the scientists experiment. This new data he also registers. He realizes that the names for the things before and after the reaction match up. Unfortunately this doesn't tell him how fire works. He decides to test how the wood tastes. It tastes like wood should taste. This he also registers. He still doesn't know how fire works.

[rabinoz]

You pick an absolute stupid "experiment" simply because you are scared that your Flat Earth might get found out

Would you mind speaking English?

So, sorry, I did leave a couple out a couple of words and I guess you didn't like my colourful description of your idea of the earth. I fixed it with the bold bits.
But, my point was that Rounder proposed a quite possible "experiment".
I know it is not all that easy, but it is quite "doable" as I attempted to point out at the end of my post.

 While you're at it, could you please stop abusing formatting? It doesn't make your posts any edgier or more convincing - they're just unpleasant to read, especially when you account for the fact that people view the forum on various devices.

Apart from a bit of excessive big bold and red text, exactly where am I "abusing formatting". I centred the picture, what else? If I don't know what bugs you I won't know how to avoid it! By the way this is done on a tablet, and all my offending post displays perfectly in both landscape and portrait. On the computer I check my posts on small windows, so where have I offended so grossly.

Also, I take your complete lack of an actual response as a concession that Rounder's idea of "simplicity" was simply silly. Hopefully you won't waste our time with it again.

Rounder's test, while not as easy as he made out it is not absolutely ridiculous like your:

• Walk out of your house with the person you want to prove things to
• Walk to the moon
• Point at the Earth and laugh smugly at how round it is

Hyuk-hyuk, even a CHILD would understand this concept!

You don't think walking to the moon is more impossible than a voyage that is actually undertaken every few years by solo sailors! No wonder you think that the earth is flat! 

On 6th November 2016 a number of sailors are going to start a race sail around Antarctica.  So wait till a bit into 2017 and you will find out whether your "Ice Wall Map" is realistic!

Fascinating. You seem to think that proves something, or at least provides evidence of some sort. Care to elaborate?

Yes, actually it proves a lot! The whole point is that every few years the Vendee Globe yachting race is sailed around the course shown on the map.
The 2012-2013 winner, François Gabart took just over 78 days for the whole race, sailing a total of 28,647 miles.

That time and distance would be quite impossible on your "Ice Wall Map".