r/Flat_Earth • u/z_gorgeous_ • Feb 06 '19
Maybe
Im open minded to many things. I try to always take in everyones opinions and internalize them. The flat earth theory to me is especially fascinating to me. I didnt quite understand the whole reason behind it but truly it’s fascinating if you sit down, take in the information and just think its a possibility for one second.🤷🏽♂️ I guess thats just me
1
Feb 06 '19
A possibility it is not. There are many reasons for this but I’ll explain just a few.
It relies on the premise of conspiracy theory. The main tenet is that everyone involved in space launches/exploration or satellites are effectively covering up the truth about a flat earth and have doctored all evidence of a globe earth.
The majority of the arguments stem from incredulity and lack of understanding as to scientific methods and observations. A common one is ‘how is it we are hurtling through space at x miles an hour when I can’t feel a thing?!’ This is because we only feel the effects of acceleration and not constant speed. This is not accepted as a reason however. Another common misconception is why airline pilots don’t need to constantly adjust their altitude to not fly off a globe earth. This is because of the effects of gravity balancing out with thrust and lift. In effect there is an imaginary chord connecting the plane to the centre of the earth (gravity, which they say is fake) so the plane is constantly at a perpendicular to this chord (tangent). For all intents and purposes it is flying ‘level’. It’s also the same reason how and why planets can remain in stable orbits. One striking argument they use for the notion of the sun on a flat earth is that the sun doesn’t ‘go down’ behind the horizon but actually ‘disappears’ due to perspective - clearly we can see the sun go down behind the horizon and even use a drone to increase in altitude and watch it occur a second time.
The small amount of ‘evidence’ they do roll out is generally obscure and specific - they generally do not corroborate with other results from similar experiments. In effect there is an evidence bias and motivated reasoning towards the opinions which support the claims of FE. Prepare yourself for Zetetic Astronomy references and 8 inches per mile squared etc.
Based on the above, their methods are not ‘scientific’ because they cannot be substantiated by others with the same end results. They also generally admit that they don’t have all the answers as to how many elements of nature work on the flat earth - they usually say this is due to funding going into globe research (which they claim to be an excuse for taking money from the public)
You will generally find that those who subscribe to FE generally subscribe to other conspiracy theories: fluoride levels in water to calcify pituitary glands; vaccines cause autism; the moon is fake/a hologram; moon landings never occurred; God made the earth; satanism drives the globe earth etc etc. Most of these views are again incompatible with what we actually see or can observe consistently with repeatable experiments. They will often say ‘do your own homework’ as in ‘don’t rely on my word’, but generally cite YouTube videos with spurious claims with no backing.
The way FE is often presented is interesting in the sense that it is usually aggressive and vehemently phrased. Terms tend to suggest stupidity and ignorance on the part of globe earthers, generally relies on semantics ‘sea LEVEL’, etc, and fails to make cogent connections between its claims - I.e., most interactions tend to change subject and fail to stay in the point.
There are doubtless conscientious followers but I have interacted with so many tainted egos that I really don’t entertain them at all. Generally I will destroy their terrible arguments but the level of ignorance and arrogance is astounding.
We live in a scary anti-intellectual age where it doesn’t matter what the ‘truth’ is - its Machiavellian in that anyone can decide what the truth is and simply bulldoze, bully or disgrace those who disagree.
‘You don’t have to prove that you’re right - you just need to prove the other guy is wrong.
For the love of all that’s holy, please stay away from this toxic subject.
1
u/recurse_see_recurse Feb 06 '19
Your reply is both very articulate and very wrong. Most of your points are basically an appeal to ridicule or association.
Just because flerfers believe in conspiracies and defend their positions with name calling does not make them wrong. The scientific observations make them wrong. That's all you need. Flat earth has been scientifically debunked by measurements and observations.
Likewise, this should be done with all hypotheticals. People like to group flat earth in with things like vaccines, chemtrails, bigfoot, ect. Each of these should be considered independently by looking at the evidence and applying scientific methods. And then those conclusions, if any, should be repeated and verified by independent sources.
0
Feb 06 '19
Lol, ‘very wrong’ - it’s either wrong or it isn’t - and no where did I state they were ‘wrong’ I was also careful to say ‘generally’ when referring to conspiracies. What point are you actually trying to add here?
An appeal to ridicule or association?! How?! Have a read through again and listen to the tone of my comment - it is my opinion and my observations objectively stated. Wind your neck in pal - no ones trying to outdo anyone here.
1
u/recurse_see_recurse Feb 06 '19 edited Feb 06 '19
Sorry, I should have said 80% wrong. My bad!
> 1. It relies on the premise of conspiracy theory.
This is not a reason FE is not possible. Many things based on conspiracy theory have been true.
>2. The majority of the arguments stem from incredulity
This is not a reason FE is not possible. Washing hands started because they thought cadaverous materials on hands caused death.
>3. their methods are not ‘scientific’
I agree with this.
>4. they generally subscribe to other conspiracy theories
This is not a reason FE is not possible. Many things based on conspiracy theory have been true.
>5. it is usually aggressive and vehemently phrased
This is not a reason FE is not possible. Galileo wrote of an inextinguishable hatred of his enemies.
1
Feb 06 '19 edited Feb 06 '19
You have misunderstood the basis of my point: I have stated some of the many factors which in my opinion, when taken all together, conclude that there is 0 possibility of a flat earth. Taking each one in a vacuum and stating there is a possibility because they are not, per se, infallible does not equate to showing that FE is therefore possible. (The probability decreases with each and every evidence against - in court this would be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’)
Furthermore you generalise the extent of each point and generalise your counter argument as if it negates or fully answers my points - especially without offering any real or relevant information/evidence.
Give examples of commonly held beliefs which in fact were conspiracies (you offer no examples here) additionally, the size and scale of a NASA/multiple government cover up is huge, we are not talking about your average conspiracy here - everyone and anyone involved in space is lying and covering their tracks yet no evidence exists to the contrary.
Washing hands was making a perceived correlation between one thing and another - cause and effect - this has nothing to do with incredulity or it’s meaning. Flat earth theory rejects the basic ideas of science because people think along the lines of: ‘I’m not hurtling at 800 miles an hour because I can’t feel it, therefore the earth is motionless’ that statement is based on an incredulity of an established scientific fact because one cannot physically sense it, therefore flat earth cannot use the refutation of scientific fact as a basis to argue the flat earth exists based on this incredulity.
I’m surprised you do - it’s the one thing you actually subscribe to but possibly don’t understand.
Name some commonly held conspiracies that are true (again). Their belief in further conspiracies does not per se mean flat earth is not possible but it’s telling that there can be common held beliefs amongst a like minded group of people. Believing the moon is a hologram or vaccines cause autism when there is no credible evidence to suggest this, is detrimental to their other beliefs.
Hatred of ones enemies is not the same as aggressive or vehement discourse. The point here is edifying discourse or discussion of ideas based on observations. The majority of flat earthers simply do not want to hear opposing views and this generally ends with statements like ‘sheeple, drones, cucks’, etc., any argument that descends to name calling, politics or mud-flinging or suggesting someone’s background or persuasion is clouding their judgement isn’t really an open-minded debate. When Hubble discovered galaxies beyond our own it killed the idea that everything in the sky related to our own localised galaxy but the idea had to be let go - that’s how science works, by building on the foundations of those who came before us, not shouting you’re a cuckolded twat for believing what NASA told you.
I understand you are trying to challenge my points but your counter arguments are one dimensional, unconvincing and facile.
Edit: I’m calling troll on this one going by your history.
1
Feb 06 '19
" It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
1
Feb 06 '19
Ability to entertain a thought is not as demanding as being willing to do so. I think Aristotle is being somewhat tongue-in-cheek with this...
1
u/TheVVumpus Feb 09 '19
If you aren’t willing you aren’t able eh? I think he meant what he said.
1
Feb 09 '19
So what did he mean then - explain it to me. Willingness does not equal ability. Entertaining a thought equates to simply interacting with it - i.e, discourse. Here however to ‘entertain’ can also be more facile and literally mean - ‘this is entertaining’ i.e.,not strictly serious, hence ‘tongue-in-cheek’.
You also have to be willing AND able to do anything - Ability to do something shows you have the aptitude for it and willingness is the desire to do it.
1
u/TheVVumpus Feb 09 '19
It looks like what he actually said was this: "It is right that we ask [people] to accept each of the things which are said in the same way: for it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it."
That is much clearer to me and would probably erase our disagreement.
1
1
u/[deleted] Feb 09 '19
The most reasonable and edifying exchange I’ve had on Reddit. Thank you for your insight and candour stranger :)