Nice aggressive responses on multiple threads, “Vengeance”.
Having seen many debates between GE’s and FE’s, it’s worth noting that the FE’s usually win (in my opinion).
Doesn’t mean their position is correct. Doesn’t mean their arguments were correct.
Means they had better refutations and points. I’m just a layman with no pony in this race, it’s the debater’s job to convince me.
As far as “losing the plot”, if you can tell me ONE point where having the wrong opinion on this subject would functionally and pragmatically affect my day-to-day life in any way other than potential loss of social opinion, I’m all ears.
Note that I do not professionally launch rockets or chart global navigation routes.
The best argument for not pushing FE is that it can dissuade normies from looking into other posited dissenting evidences. It came from here, and it’s a very good point.
Outside of that, the subject as a whole is an interesting dive into epistemology and how people rationalize and engage with both reality and intellectual propositions.
Regarding "round earth" proofs, an easy proof is to triangulate the position of the sun from at least 3 different positions on the globe simultaneously. Cell phones can be useful. The further apart these locations are, the more effective the triangulation will be (at least, it'll be easier to work with in the proof).
Doing this will prove that the surface of the earth MUST be curved in order for each reference of triangulation to be pointing at the same source. If the earth were flat, the triangulation wouldn't match up, as though each reference were pointing to a completely different point in the sky.
There are tons of proofs as to why the "flat earth model" can't exist. Not many proofs are presented as to why the earth is round. But the above-mentioned proof is one. And it's easily testable too without having to figure out how to launch a flat-earther into space to personally "witness" the curvature of the earth.
To take it a step further, FE/GE is notably Hegelian.
The earth could also be rounded or curved without being a sphere floating in space, with us occupying a smaller plane within a larger one, or an object that simply isn’t flat. There may be other options, too.
I’m not good enough at the equations to verify the math portions, myself. If the FE equations are off, it would certainly be a great point of attack for GE/NFE to go after, but I haven’t seen it in debates. Not clearly, at least.
That’s why I say I’ve seen debates lost, not one or the other proven or disproven, and that my interest in this race is in how people approach information, and not necessarily in which point is true.
Nice aggressive responses on multiple threads, “Vengeance”.
Having seen many debates between GE’s and FE’s, it’s worth noting that the FE’s usually win (in my opinion). Doesn’t mean their position is correct. Doesn’t mean their arguments were correct. Means they had better refutations and points. I’m just a layman with no pony in this race, it’s the debater’s job to convince me.
As far as “losing the plot”, if you can tell me ONE point where having the wrong opinion on this subject would functionally and pragmatically affect my day-to-day life in any way other than potential loss of social opinion, I’m all ears.
Note that I do not professionally launch rockets or chart global navigation routes.
The best argument for not pushing FE is that it can dissuade normies from looking into other posited dissenting evidences. It came from here, and it’s a very good point.
Outside of that, the subject as a whole is an interesting dive into epistemology and how people rationalize and engage with both reality and intellectual propositions.
Regarding "round earth" proofs, an easy proof is to triangulate the position of the sun from at least 3 different positions on the globe simultaneously. Cell phones can be useful. The further apart these locations are, the more effective the triangulation will be (at least, it'll be easier to work with in the proof).
Doing this will prove that the surface of the earth MUST be curved in order for each reference of triangulation to be pointing at the same source. If the earth were flat, the triangulation wouldn't match up, as though each reference were pointing to a completely different point in the sky.
There are tons of proofs as to why the "flat earth model" can't exist. Not many proofs are presented as to why the earth is round. But the above-mentioned proof is one. And it's easily testable too without having to figure out how to launch a flat-earther into space to personally "witness" the curvature of the earth.
To take it a step further, FE/GE is notably Hegelian.
The earth could also be rounded or curved without being a sphere floating in space, with us occupying a smaller plane within a larger one, or an object that simply isn’t flat. There may be other options, too.
I’m not good enough at the equations to verify the math portions, myself. If the FE equations are off, it would certainly be a great point of attack for GE/NFE to go after, but I haven’t seen it in debates. Not clearly, at least.
That’s why I say I’ve seen debates lost, not one or the other proven or disproven, and that my interest in this race is in how people approach information, and not necessarily in which point is true.