• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Earth flat or spheroid?

Is the earth flat or spheroid ?

  • Spheroid (includes all variations)

  • Flat (includes all variations)

Results are only viewable after voting.
Taylor said:
Yes. Sufficient. But not necessary.

I could also use science to predict where coconuts come from. If I didn't have eyes or the ability to leave the ground, it might even be useful.
Click to expand...


Agree
 
JoeyJoystick said:
Hi Juin,

You have no understanding of science.
Click to expand...


I am afraid I do.





You have it wrong. It is for you to disprove the flat earth hypothesis. A hypothesis must withstand all challenges, or is proven False
 
JoeyJoystick said:
Hi Juin,

I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one.
I am also not a round earth hypothesist. We passed that station when it was proven that earth is round.
Click to expand...


I am find with spheroid, or whatever you are fine with





Let me repeat my position. The flat earth hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is not superstition as many on the thread appear to believe. A hypothesis follows from what data is available to the observer; not what data is available to another observer he never heard of
 
That is false. Do not confuse a scientific theory with the generic use of the term. Scientific Theories are best explanations of the natural world based around supporting evidence and/or experimentation. The more supporting evidence, the greater the veracity of the theory. But contradictory evidence will discredit a theory. As it is, flat earth has no supporting evidence and is otherwise refuted by established facts. Only the wilfully ignorant and/or those seeking attention by being a contrarian still cling to flat earth nonsense.
Juin said:
No scientist shuts down contrary arguments. A spherical earth hypothesist who shuts down flat earth hypothesists is not serving science, but rather is engaging in superstition masquerading as science
Click to expand...
No, a scientific argument is only as strong as the evidence supporting it. Flat earth is debunked and is no longer a valid claim.
 
Gordy327 said:
The more supporting evidence, the greater the veracity of the theory.
Click to expand...
This is false. It's confirmation bias.

You're better off considering contrary arguments and demonstrating how your theory can make accurate predictions alternative theories cannot.
 
Last edited:
Gordy327 said:
No, a scientific argument is only as strong as the evidence supporting it.
Click to expand...
Also false. Many of Einstein's most profound ideas could not be tested with the technology available at the time, so we're gathering evidence to support them decades later.

The arguments were quite strong even without the evidence.
 
Taylor said:
Also false. Many of Einstein's most profound ideas could not be tested with the technology available at the time, so we're gathering evidence to support them decades later.

The arguments were quite strong even without the evidence.
Click to expand...
That's why they were not immediately accepted. But the math did fit.
Taylor said:
This is false. It's confirmation bias.

You're better off considering contrary arguments and demonstrating how your theory can make accurate predictions alternative theories cannot.
Click to expand...
Flat earth is not an alternate theory, as it's debunked. Using the same failed arguments or claims is not offering anything valid to the contrary. Even contrary arguments need evidence. Otherwise there is no reason to consider or accept them.
 
Last edited:
Earth's more of a trapezoid.
 
If Earth ain't a Rhombus then I don't know what the ****.
 
That's not how science works at all. Flat earth is not a valid scientific hypothesis, it has been falsified in innumerable ways and it does not follow from scientific observations. "I looked out my window and it seems kinda flat" isn't a scientific observation.

Flat earth people are not working with data of any kind, and science is not changed based on what you have personally observed.
 
Taylor said:
This is false. It's confirmation bias.

You're better off considering contrary arguments and demonstrating how your theory can make accurate predictions alternative theories cannot.
Click to expand...
Flat earth also gets wildly disproven with this philosophy as well. Flat earth fails every one of its attempts at prediction, (in the very rare case they even bother to try, flat earthers readily admit they have no model with which to make predictions) while round earth succeeds every single time
 

I'm done with this discussion. You're assertions are based on assumptions not data.

It is said that Socrates (470BC-399BC), the legendary Greek philosopher, first popularized the idea that the Earth was round instead of flat. He observed a lunar eclipse and realized that the shadow on the moon due to the earth was curved, which prompted him to deduce that the earth must be round if it were to cast a curved shadow. Additionally, the shape of the moon—a celestial body just like the earth—is also round, which helped him conclude that all the celestial bodies must be round, including our planet. He did not provide any mathematical or scientific backing, so there was no proof, except his observations.

Some scientists during the same period also noted that whenever ships arrived in port, the topmost portion of the ship would be visible first, not the whole ship. If the earth was flat, the whole ship should be visible from a distance. These types of observations helped to strengthen the theory of the round earth.

His belief was based on observable data. 2500 years ago.

Buh-bye
 

Hi Taylor,

Sorry taylor, but NO. Hell no. Not a chance.

Can you repeat it? I bet you can't. I bet 99% of the people can not.

Sorry for taking a strong stance here. But it was not observational. He could not 'see' that Alexandria was 800km away. He could not 'see' that a circle has 360 degrees. He also understood that without accurate time, 'noon' on the longest day would
allow him to compare the solar zenith angle at the same time, regardless of Longitude. Wow! You need to be one very clever cookie to come up with that kind of stuff.

Claiming this is not science is like saying Newton was watching apples fall from the tree... lol.


Joey
 

Hi Juin,

Yes a Hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it has been proven right or wrong. So for anyone to proof or disproof your hypothesis, you need to supply evidence for your hypothesis. And you have not, so your hypothesis will remain just that, a hypothesis.

And this is contrary to the a round earth which has been proven correctly many times over. In addition to that, you could also have followed to the road of disproving the earth is round, which you also have not managed to pull of.

Joey
 
Taylor said:
Also false. Many of Einstein's most profound ideas could not be tested with the technology available at the time, so we're gathering evidence to support them decades later.

The arguments were quite strong even without the evidence.
Click to expand...

Hi Taylor,

Just because it has not been tested, does not mean that it has not been proven. The science of mathematics is a very good example of that.


Joey
 

Hi Gordy,

There is truth in saying that it was not immediately accepted. But the vast majority of scientists had accepted the calculations as proof. Observational evidence merely reconfirmed the theory.

Stephen Hawking once had a theory. He struggled convincing fellow scientists of his theory. He later realized that his theory was wrong. Stephen later claimed it was harder to convince the scientists that he was wrong the 2nd time than that he was right the first time... lol.


Joey
 
Excellent analysis.
Serious flat-earthers have no chance against your logic.
 
Juin said:
You have it wrong. It is for you to disprove the flat earth hypothesis. A hypothesis must withstand all challenges, or is proven False
Click to expand...
Flat earth has been widely disproven in countless ways, not the least of which is people literally circumnavigating it constantly for the last few centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.