I'm having an argument with a flat earther: what logical fallacies is he making?

Standing my ground on a flat earth
 
special thanks to Stacey McStationary

In a way, it’s understandable. For the main, people in general are programmed by the indocrination (“education”) systems around the world to accept certain things as fact without scrutiny. It becomes like a mental disease in a herd: accept or be ridiculed, shunned or regarded as stupid.

An idea almost universally ridiculed is flat earth or globe skepticism. And currently that is my stance. I looked at a view I had held for over 30 years of my life and found it to be without strong evidence and mainly baseless. And I chose not to be afraid of ridicule or rejection about my new conclusions, but rather to be as outspoken as those who hold the opposing view.

Then something kinda new happened. Someone at least tried to respectfully challenge my conclusions about flat earth. I appreciate that. The amount of times in my life that I’m left to a conclusion and there’s no real life challenge to see if it fails. I end up just feeling as if I’m going crazy while the rest of the world is sane. Testing my view in a real conversation lets me know if I’ve missed something.In this blogpost, I’m going to share my side of that interaction, my reply to an email sent to me. I put enough work into it, so I feel like sharing it. I’m going to depersonalise it, remove names, so as not to embarrass the person I spoke to.

 
 

Firstly, thank you for challenging me respectfully. That is what I want regarding my stance on many topics that are minority or fringe. I am going to respond respectfully … or at least I hope you see it that way. But I’m going to be blunt. So if I see factual errors or logical fallacies in what you say, for the most part, I’m not going to overlook it. Because of disputes about evolutionism and flat earth, I’ve had to brush up on my knowledge of logical fallacies and the scientific method as best I can.

Because I enjoy this topic, I’m gonna take your email piece by piece. So it’s gonna be long.

So here goes.

This flat earth thing of yours has to stop.
Belittling my honest conclusions to just being “a thing” doesn’t help in respectful dialogue. The only way this can “stop” is with strong rational arguments and/or observations, and evidence of that strength. Until it is clear to me, or enough doubt is thrown on my current conclusion, I’m going to be, when I choose to be, as vocally bold as my opponent, as those who are convinced about their view.

Conspiracies fall apart when too many people are involved
 

Straw-man argument: I made no claim of conspiracy. Please deal with claims I made rather than those of others. If you’re concluding that to hide something so significant must take a conspiracy, then you’re arguing with your own conclusion, not what I said. In this response of mine, I choose not to speculate on strangers.

It was scientifically impossible to fake the moon landing in 1969 as digital filming and light projection technology required for such a stunt did not exist yet.
Here there is the incorrect use of terms. “Science” used in terms of “natural science” properly refers to a method of inquiry, testing cause and effect by use of properly structured hypotheses concerning natural phenomena, a hypothesis that states an independent variable (cause) and a dependent variable (effect) and then uses experiment to test whether the proposed cause causes the effect. The term “science” has beent stretched to the knowledge gained from such a method.

Your sentence above makes sense (though is still fallacious) if you remove the word “scientifically” or if you replace it with “technologically.”

 

But even then your claim is an ipsi dixit fallacy, “I say so therefore it is.” You’ve not shown me the height of technology in those days, and I don’t believe you can show me the technological limits and methodological limits of people, especially in secretive industries, such as government or media. If you are going to claim a technological limit, as you just did, it’s important that you have compelling evidence to prove it, not just declare it.

Literally millions of people, many of whom hate each other, would have to be in on the conspiracy.
Another ipsi dixit fallacy based on baseless claims. It also ignores the power of compartmentalisation of knowledge and skills, where one level of an organisation knows something other levels do not like how executives know things the people who just obey orders and do their work do not. You claim that a class of strangers hate each other. I don’t care about the abstraction of “class” or “group” because I would need concrete evidence of the hatred between the specific individuals involved and how that hatred would interfere with using similar methods. So you’d have to know the individuals claimed to be involved, which would be impossible when I’ve made no claim about individuals involved nor have I claimed conspiracy.

 

So when you’re ready to deal with claims I’ve made rather than lumping me into some group of unknown members and then arguing against what you claim to be their arguments and not what I’ve actually said, then things are going to be better for a productive discussion.

For the hoax to hold up: every SINGLE independent pilot, astronomer, sailor, map maker, etc., etc. would have to be in on it
This is the same mistake as before. In fact, this would be another baseless claim, ipsi dixit fallacy. Let me make a bold claim: you don’t even know every single one of these workers to claim what they know or believe. In fact, I believe for the pilot, sailor and mapmaker, the veracity of earth shape is irrelevant or not even used. Added to that, there is an “education” system that indoctrinates people before they even have critical reasoning and, from my experience, most people don’t even question what was drilled into them from school.

Control the minds of the children, especially with stuff they can’t experience or prove for themselves, then that is great control.

 

Astronomy isn’t even a proper science anyway, not even natural science. I already quoted Arthur Eddington on my blog anyway, where he said that if a person wants to just go by actual observations and reject theory, then all astronomy books are banned. Since science proper is based on observation, creating proper hypotheses, cause and effect, and the experimenter manipulating the proposed cause to prove the cause-effect relationship, then astronomy is out.

Proving that the earth is a globe is easy, literally anyone can do it.
This is false. The fact that certain people can’t prove it or don’t prove it flatly contradicts this claim. Also, the fact that since you didn’t do it in this email, spending more time to attempt to refute conclusions you believe are held by other flat earthers and imputing them to me rather than actually giving positive evidence for the globe earth says a lot to me. So, to contradict your statement, “proving globe earth is easy, anyone can do it,” Since it’s so easy, why didn’t you do it?

 

In fact, flat and stationary earth is easier to observe and experience, because it’s a normal person’s everyday experience before they convince themselves (or are brainwashed into thinking) that they’re spinning, wobbling and flying at hundreds of thousands of miles an hour based on proposed galactic speeds.

For the earth to be a disk …
I don’t claim the earth is a “disk.” Disk is defined as a thin flat object. I don’t know how thin or thick the earth is.

You would need to explain fight patterns:
Why someone who flies from LA to SYDNEY never sees the Himalayas?
Why would I need to explain something I’ve made no claim about? Which map have I presented? I don’t even know which map you’re talking about. This is you imputing someone else’s picture on me again.

On flat earth maps this is necessary
Strawman fallacy: I didn’t claim any map. You’re arguing with someone else again. And you haven’t shown why I’m obligated to create a map.

 

Reification fallacy. Referring to wikipedia, a reification fallacy is as follows:

“Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: ‘The map is not the territory’.”

That last point is important. You’re equating a map, a model, with reality. That’s a reification fallacy. I claim no map.

Also, I recognise models and maps for what they are, “working representations.” That means they have a use and they work. That doesn’t tell me the nature of a thing. Just because something is useful, that doesn’t make it true.

What is odd is that you asked me to explain something I’ve never experienced. That’s an odd challenge.

If gravity is fake, what is holding us down other than MAGIC?
 

You didn’t define gravity. What is your stance on what gravity is? What is its cause? And if it’s scientifically validated, what was the scientific experiment that validated it?

There is the “begging the question” fallacy here as well. You have done nothing to prove gravity. You’ve just stated it to me. Why would anyone accept an argument so flimsy? If you think “gravity” is real, first define it and provide adequate evidence for it. And I’m not going to accept a bunch of weblinks and an imperative to study it. Stating it is fact as the basis of a question just creates a meaningless and baseless question that needs no answer.

Also, the statement is fundamentally flawed because it produces a false dichotomy: either “gravity” or magic. “Gravity” is only someone’s attempted explanation. If I don’t accept your explanation, that only leaves the position as “unknown” if there is no alternative presented. It’s a bit like a murder, where the question is asked, “If you didn’t kill him, then who did?” That’s not the right formulation. The fact is if you didn’t kill the victim, then the answer is we don’t know. That’s all. And then to treat the only suspect as guilty would be injustice.

 

Just to warn you, I’ve heard of claims of “gravity” before and have found them to be of the normal fallacious nature that the typical globe-believers have produced.

Most flat earthers hold that both the earth and all the stars are constantly ascending and that is what stops us from flying away
Prove that most flat earthers hold this. The flat-earthers I know do not, and throw a lot of skepticism on the source of this claim (i.e. the “Flat Earth Society” website). So you’ve made this claim that most flat-earthers hold that claim. Prove that they do. Where’s the survey where the individuals actually say this? Make sure the survey has a proper sample, not one so small it would not represent the group. And in order for the claim of “most” to hold, you’d have to have a firm number of total flat earthers and the individuals who hold this view must make up more that 60 or 70 per cent.

Either way, once again, this is not my argument, not my claim. So it’s another strawman fallacy.

 

How many logical fallacies have there been so far and I’m only at point 2. This doesn’t bode well for the rest of this email.

How are time zones explained?
Odd approach. “If you accept X, explain Y.” That’s a request, not a refutation. And if a globe-earther, be it geocentric or heliocentric, had an explanation, what would that prove? That humans can make up stories? And if I said “I don’t know,” just because the glober has a story and I don’t adds no truth to the globe notion.

If the earth is a disk, why is there daylight in the northern hemisphere and darkness in the southern and vice versa?
Begging the question and self contradiction at the same time. “hemisphere” implies, necessarily, a sphere, something you haven’t proven yet. And the question therefore contradicts itself since the earth being a disk (something I don’t claim) would not be a sphere and therefore would not have a hemisphere. The question is nonsensical, like asking, “If something is NOT a sphere, why does its spherical characteristic do this?” The question is a non-question but highlights the presuppsition of the questioner. He hasn’t escaped those pre-conclusions enough to provide an adequate challenge to his opponent.

If the earth is flat, this cannot happen ever.
 

Ipsi dixit fallacy. And since it’s still based on a model/map I haven’t claimed, it’s just more strawman fallacy.

Why is every flat earth map internally self contradictory? Why is a different model/map needed in order to explain every natural phenomena?
Claims necessary for the questions:

1) Every flat earth map is internally self-contradictory.

2) Different models/maps are needed to explain every natural phenomena (sic.).

The first claim has no evidence. It doesn’t show every flat earth map available and how it contradicts itself. I’ve heard plenty an idiot claim that the bible contradicts itself and the same problems hold: either no presumed contradiction is presented or the “contradiction” doesn’t actually meet the standards for contradiction where the text itself says one thing and its opposite, claiming both are true in the same way. So claim one is baseless.

Claim 2 has similar problems. It claims something and then provides no evidence. It also makes a false claim that (different) maps are needed to explain EVERY natural phenomenon. “Every natural phenomenon?” A map for photosynthesis and a map for water boiling and a map for trees growing and a map for ant tunnels? Every natural phenomenon? What a terribly wide and thus meaningless argument.

 

Also, if maps and models are functional and pragmatic, then there would be different maps for different uses.

So this point is facile.

Why do flat earthers accept that the other celestial distant objects are spheres which rely on satellites to confirm, but reject ALL photos from thousands of satellites that confirm that the earth is a sphere?
The claim that is the basis of this question: “Flat earthers accept the other celestial distant objects are spherical which rely on satellites to confirm.” There are a few claims bunched into one here. Firstly, I can’t speak for other flat earthers. I speak for myself. I don’t accept that the objects in the sky are spherical. The flat earthers I know don’t either. So this is another strawman claim.

The nature of satellites is also questionable, as to what and where they are, and the processing of the info claimed to be gathered from them.

Also, let’s pretend all the sky objects are spheres. What would that prove? So if I live in a house where all the bulbs in the ceilings are bulb-shaped or spherical, then based on the (il)logic presented, that means the floor of the house is bulbed-shaped or spherical. Or because snooker balls on a snooker table are spherical, the snooker table is spherical.

 

This is the illogical thinking of “globe enthusiasts.” The “If everyone jumped off a cliff, I should too” sort of thinking. Look at this reasoning: because things flying in the sky are spherical (for the sake of analogy), then the place I stand on is also a flying ball in the sky??? Based on my analogies, the logic doesn’t work and is not compelling. But that’s only if I thought the lights in the sky are all spheres, another claim I didn’t make.

Then there’s the claim that flat earthers reject photos of the earth from satellites that confirm globe earth. Firstly there’s the question of “photos.” When I speak of photo, I speak of a camera taking a visual representation or snapshot of what is seen. Who claims to have such photos of earth? And how truthful are their claims? Because this sounds like hearsay. You don’t know such photographers personally and you haven’t been where they’re claiming to be. So you’re just going off stories you can’t verify from strangers you don’t know.

Added to that, I’ve seen video of people in “space” programs stating that they don’t get photographs, but rather data that they then interpret into images. Such interpretations must be based on presuppositions and, due to peer pressure and biases well-established in such cultic groups, must produce images of what is already accepted. [Addition for this blogpost not in original response: One of NASA’s image-producers even outright declared that, when he creates his pictures, he aims to match the expectation of those he’s creating the images for.]

 

So this claim here is based on a strawman fallacy of what flat earthers do and don’t accept, you’re imputing presumed group-think onto individuals, the question is based on hearsay (and blind faith), and on a misunderstanding of what space programs claim to produce, i.e., photographs as opposed to data translated by means of presupposition and bias into man-made images. There’s also the argumentum ad populum fallacy claiming that “thousands of satellites” make such photos, again, without evidence of these thousands of satellites. There’s also the question of what a satellite is and where it is claimed to be which adds further doubt to this claim.

This is another claim based on so many mistakes and errors, it’s practically worthless.

Why isn’t there a single country on earth that has its own space program, who has every reason to hate the USA, accuse NASA of fraud on a gigantic scale?
Define “country.” I don’t know what you’re talking about with that word. The govt? The people?

 

Also, why are you asking me about what is in the hearts of strangers?

But for me, it’s relatively easy to speculate reasons and motive for continuing the model of deception. For example, do you know what a space program has going for it which is an easy motive? Money. There, a speculation. It can come from a knowledge of how people work. But it wouldn’t be factual, only speculative. So why ask me for speculation? Aren’t you interested in truth more that plausible stories? But then again, what is the globe model you accept other than a plausible story (with notions that contradict natural law)? So you may value plausible stories. I don’t.

For those who like appeals to authority:
I don’t.

Literally every orthodox Rabbi in the world rejects flat earth theory (many of whom are scientists in their own right and many of whom reject atheistic evolutionary theory)
Logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Also it’s an ipsi dixit fallacy because you don’t know “literally every single orthodox rabbi in the world.” So the basis of this claim is fallacious.

 

“Flat earth theory” – what is that? I don’t have a “theory” that the earth is flat any more than I have a theory that my children are alive and exist (for now).

This is an appeal to authority fallacy with the use of “rabbi” and “scientist” to add faux-validity to their claim. The claim is only as good as the truth is stands on, the rationality of the argument, the strength of the evidence, not the title of the person saying it.

Added to that, I personally don’t believe Jews have a great track record when it comes to not following the nations in certain things. Added to that, the fact that they’re supposedly scientists adds to the possibility of being more firmly indoctrinated in the pseudoscience that is paraded as “science,” as is brainwashed into children. Added to that, although rabbis may reject “atheistic evolution,” that doesn’t eliminate theistic evolution which too is based on philosophical naturalism.

In order for this claim to hold any weight … oh wait, it doesn’t.

 

On my blog, you’ll see I’m not afraid to oppose rabbis when it comes to the seven laws, which may be more their turf. How much less do you think I regard them when it comes to stuff outside of the oral law? One of my article series this year had me refuting the claims of a rabbi on evolutionism, science and the age of the world. The title is worthless, the strength of the argument and evidence is the key here.

So this is another fallacious claim.

The earth being a globe has been accepted as fact for thousands of years
Ipsi dixit fallacy. Not only does this claim have no range, as in who accepted a ball earth and who didn’t, but it also has no evidence.

The ancient Greeks worked it out (erisethenes) though his size estimates were off, he was remarkably accurate for the time he lived in
Eratosthenes.

Do you know how much you presumed with that one claim and name??? Ok, let’s try this. Did you read his original work? Or are you working off hearsay again? Because, since I had to look at both sides of the discussion and consider the evidences myself, I’ve heard moderns recounting the story as if it’s biblical fact, but they’re always recounting it like a rumour, like gossip, rather than literally quoting his original work. I’ve seen deGrasse Tyson and some NASA woman recount the story.

 

By the way, let’s pretend the story of this Greek is true. Did you critically analyse the story? What did Eratosthenes have to assume to figure out this size? Where did this guy say the sun was? Have you really interrogated the story? Because, if you did, assuming the gossip to be of sufficient truth, then you’d know that he didn’t disprove flat earth. Even deGrasse Tyson admitted this in some YouTube startalk interview (or more likely, someone kissing his arse, which normally seems to happen with him). That’s because that Greek guy would have had to make assumptions about light as well as other things, and in the end, … he gets the wrong answer, well, at least wrong in the eyes of the modern globe-believer.

Again, there is so much lacking to this claim and story, I’m surprised you would put this forward. Should I accept the existence of Atlantis?

Issac Newton was fluent in Hebrew and we still have his original manuscripts where he corresponds with Rabbis in Europe in these very subjects
 

And? Who is Newton to me? The name is supposed to elicit respect, right? Another stranger surrounded by story and myth. The names don’t mean much. Give me actual evidence. That may give me something to actually consider.

Why are the constellations completely different in Australia from Europe and North America?
If the earth is actually a disk, this would be impossible.
Let’s try one approach to this question.

“I don’t know. I don’t know the nature of the sky.” To this the globe person may respond “Well we have a explanation/story.” And I would say, so what? In order for the explanation/story to mean anything, you have to prove the basis of the story, the flying spinning ball. You haven’t done that. So this question is useless.

Another approach would be that looking at the sky ain’t gonna tell me about the shape of the ground I stand on.

 

Another approach would be to point out that you mentioned three different places. And then you asked why the sky is different between a place in the south and two places in the north. But the simple answer is that they’re in different places in relation to the portion of the sky that they can see.

With any of these approaches, nothing has deflated or defeated a flat earth perspective or advanced globe earth belief.

Oh, the claim that people in different places seeing different things in the sky would be impossible on a flat earth is baseless. Another ipsi dixit fallacy.

GPS technology depends on the earth being a sphere in order to work: how does one explain otherwise?
Prove it. Again another empty claim with no proof behind it. A familiar fallacy brings up its head again: ipsi dixit. “GPS” or “global positioning satellites” is just a name. Just because that’s what they’re called that doesn’t tell me about the nature of the world, any more than me calling a ship “Narnia’s vessel” make Narnia a real place, just like calling an object “a space ship” doesn’t make the vacuum called “outer space” a real thing.

All I know is the function of the system: to pinpoint a position. That can happen on a flat earth. Whether it’s done via high-altitude objects or land based triangulation, I don’t know.

But what I do know is that once again function is being mistaken for truth. The fact that the system works, a system that would presumably work in either system, wouldn’t tell me which system is true.

Now you may have many questions, but the questions aren’t Socratic. They reveal more about your presuppositions, your currently held belief that the world is a flying ball. They also reveal that you currently aren’t exhibiting the understanding of logic to remove irrationality from your questioning. There were so many examples of logical fallacies in your questions and statements, so many appeals to irrelevant theses, dealing with the arguments of others than actually dealing with me, bringing up ill-defined entities like gravity, begging the question, that this whole exercise was, although engaging, more fruitless than fruitful.

I believe you need to examine your own worldview and make sure it is actually based on science, observation and logic. Because what you presented in your email lacks all three.

The FE'er has reversed the onus of proof   Shifting of the Burden of Proof 

He knows the map is not the territory, the model not the item, argues that what others say is not what he says/means...

He needs to be pinned down, required to make an assertion (other than the Earth is flat) with a consequence that is testable, and would fail if the Earth is not flat.

Almost as good, because it requires him to make at least something of a claim, is to ask him to suggest a test of Earth's hypothetical roundness that fails because it is in fact flat.  Imo, it would also be necessary to establish what qualified as sufficiency of testing, so that he can't dodge the results, with "yeah, but".