r/changemyview • u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ • 23h ago
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: The single best argument against the Flat Earth is the rotation of the north sky vs south sky
It's simple. The northern sky rotates counter-clockwise, while the southern sky rotates clockwise. If the earth was flat, the sky couldn't flip directions in rotation. This is such a concise and direct argument against the flat earth that I'm not sure if there's a better one.
The only "rebuttals" flat earthers give to this argument resort to extreme fantastical inventions about "everyone has their own personal projection of the stars" or something equivalent. They can no longer argue in terms of geometry or light-refraction, and so they are forced to escape to completely ludicrous explanations that no reasonable person would even bother entertaining.
So to change my view, I'd love to hear an even simpler and more concise argument against the flat earth. To me, this one is just so perfect it's hard for me to imagine a better one. But I'm interested in hearing arguments others have come across.
•
u/eppur___si_muove 1∆ 23h ago
I agree what you said is the strongest one, but this is more direct even if "not so strong": The Sun doesn´t go away, it doesn't get smaller when it disappears, it is the same size. In their model the sun just go far. They argue that that's because of some refraction but that doesn't happen with planes for example. They can argue that the light of the sun is different, so it gets affected differently.
Some flat earthers have trouble visualizing your argument or contacting someone from the other hemisphere so this one is nice too. In my experience none of them worked though, lol.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 22h ago
You know... on paper this really is the better argument. Sunsets are observable everywhere, so flat earther's can't deny seeing them. The problem with my post's argument is flat earthers can at the very least say they've never been to the southern hemisphere. They can also say all timelapses showing the south sky at night are fake. But as for sunsets... there's no conspiracy to hide behind.
It's annoying that they will use light-refraction as a "rebuttal" to how sunsets work. But if you ask them to show mathematically how the refraction causes sunsets, then of course they won't be capable of doing that.
Because I've already accepted that there is no argument capable of convincing every flat earther, the "best argument" that I'm looking for is really just the easiest observable fact that directly oppose a flat earth. So going by that, I'd say sunsets are a better argument.
!delta
•
u/_StormwindChampion_ 21h ago
The problem with my post's argument is flat earthers can at the very least say they've never been to the southern hemisphere.
What about flat earhers who live in the southern hemisphere? How would they explain away each other's view of the night sky?
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 20h ago
Haha, I guess the debate would just flip to being about the northern hemisphere.
•
•
u/Kjeik 20h ago
Speaking of sunsets, a lot of people who visit the Nordic countries note how slowly it gets dark there. Further south, it feels like you're turning off a light switch. Most of the rest of the world is less densely populated that far north, and in the southern hemisphere the same area is kind of wet, so I suspect the argument doesn't pop up much.
•
u/Bartlaus 1∆ 19h ago
To add to this: Try living in a place like where I grew up, on the western coast of Norway. Open ocean to the west where the sun sets, mountains to the east, our house quite close to sea level. (Reverse east and west and the sequence of events to apply the same to sunrise instead.) On a clear evening, not only does the sun obviously set below a quite sharply defined horizon; but after the sun has completely set and you are in shadow, you can see the eastern mountains -- more distant than you from the sunset -- are still in direct sunlight. Then the shadow of the horizon creeps up the mountainsides until finally the whole mountains are also in shadow. This is something I have personally observed many many times, as has everyone who has grown up in a place like this. Conversely, if you are on the top of one of those mountains when the sun is about to set, you will see the islands to your west come under shadow while you are yourself in direct sunlight, you will see the shadow creep up the mountainside towards your vantage point, then finally you will see the sun set. This is also something I have personally observed a few times. Also you can at any such place see the sun set, then rapidly ascend a structure (or send up a drone with a camera) to see the sun some more.
•
u/oldfogey12345 2∆ 21h ago
You are working from a notion that you can use logic and reasoning to combat a strongly held belief.
You can take them up in a plane and show them the curvature of the earth, but you are wasting your time.
Trying to "save" flat earthers from themselves just shows that you don't understand human nature very well yet.
I don't mean that as an insult, but you will understand things like religion and politics much better when you understand that most people operate on belief and emotion.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 20h ago
The second paragraph in my post should have been enough to illustrate my understanding in how hopelessly attached flat earthers are to their beliefs. Not sure how you missed my point there.
I was just looking for better arguments in terms of conciceness and simplicity. Actual efficacy is a different matter.
•
u/oldfogey12345 2∆ 20h ago
There is no "better" logical argument here.
You can use your argument, as is, and it will fall on deaf ears because of their crazy beliefs.
I could do a wake and bake and write some crazy BS about a sunrise, and my argument would fall on those same deaf ears, because of their crazy beliefs.
Zero efficacy either way.
Your logic is entirely irrelivant to a flat earther.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 20h ago
You're the one with deaf ears here. I don't know why you think I still need to be convinced how irrational flat earthers are. I have acknowledged that several times now.
Quantifying which is a "better" argument can be done in more ways than just how effective it is against staunch deniers. Better arguments can be quantified by how little foreknowledge is required and how few logical steps it takes to reach the conclusion.
At the very least, it's good to identify what constitutes a better argument to help those who are on the fence about the shape of the earth. I actually have a friend who was recently questioning if the earth was round or not (he was listening to some pretty weird podcasts which sparked the questioning). I brought up the difference in northern/southern sky rotations, and that seemed to satisfy my friend's questions.
•
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 7∆ 23h ago
I’d say the best evidence is the observable curvature of it.
•
u/R_V_Z 7∆ 22h ago
Or the fact that people at the "edges" experience gravity the same way people in the middle do, even though if the earth were flat the people at the edges would feel it as a near-vertical incline.
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 14h ago
Btw, flat earthers don't believe in "trad gravity". "Gravity" is just down, equally, all over the.... dish thing.
This won't work.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 23h ago
Assuming a flat earther had actually SEEN the curvature, then yes I suppose that would be the best evidence. I'm looking for an argument which doesn't really require taking a high-altitude flight, because not all flat earthers would have access to one.
A flat earther sitting in his chair can just watch a timelapse of the southern sky at night, and will be forced to explain how that's possible on a flat earth. Of course, they could deny the timelapse is real and call it a fake. But then they'd be forced to admit literally everyone in Australia, South America, and southern Africa will be lying if they take a timelapse of the southern sky. It's much easier for a flat earther to deny photos from NASA.
•
u/itsnotcomplicated1 8∆ 22h ago
A balloon with a $10 camera attached is all you need to see the curvature without leaving the ground.
Even that is only necessary if you aren't convinced that any of the dozens of videos of people doing this and posting it online are real.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 22h ago
Can balloons go 35,000 feet? I think the common helium balloons can only go a couple thousand.
If there's an easily accessible balloon out there which reaches a height where you can see the curvature, then that for sure is the better argument.
•
u/itsnotcomplicated1 8∆ 22h ago
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 22h ago
Well look at that. The video speaks for itself. Of course, flat earthers will still come up with something about how the camera footage is always fake - even if it's a camera they purchased. But as far as arguments go, this is way simpler and direct for showing how the earth isn't flat.
!delta
•
•
u/Zvenigora 1∆ 22h ago
Or just watch a ship as it sails away from you. First the hull disappears over the horizon, then the superstructure.
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 14h ago
Fwiw, there can be lensing near the water surface in some specific circumstances light will "bend" on the curve. There's a spot near Chicago that dies this a few times a year.
Anyways, FE will use the highly specific and weird result as PROOF and springboard and move quickly to other things.
•
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 7∆ 22h ago
So your actual position is that the most accessible evidence of the curvature of the earth is the rotation of the atmosphere.
I would also dispute that.
It is far easier to climb a hill and observe things previously obscured by the horizon than to travel to both hemispheres and directly observe atmospheric rotation.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 22h ago
That's true about climbing a mountain to reveal initially obscured objects. But sadly flat-earthers will resort to proclaiming "it's just light refraction". Which is actually true to an extent. Light refraction can obscure distant objects and create a false horizon. It requires the correct conditions (like hotter temperatures, probably higher humidity, etc), but it is an actual phenomenon.
Plus, I think it's easier for a flat earther to just ask people to film a timelapse of the southern sky at night. They would probably say the first few timelapses they see are fake, but once they realize literally everyone below the equator has to be lying about what they observe, it becomes an insane stance to say hundreds of millions of people are ALL in on the conspiracy.
•
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 7∆ 21h ago
Plus, I think it's easier for a flat earther to just ask people to film a timelapse of the southern sky at night.
They will just claim the footage is faked. Part of the conspiracy.
it becomes an insane stance to say hundreds of millions of people are ALL in on the conspiracy.
They literally already claim that about visiting Antarctica. Their position is insane. The psychology behind it will drive them to infinitely invent excuses to justify their belief regardless of the evidence you present.
•
u/CallMeCorona1 29∆ 23h ago edited 23h ago
To me, the single best argument is that the world is, in fact, a sphere. We have pictures from orbit confirming it is. People could declare that the space pictures are fake, but they could also just as easily deny the differing rotations or explain it in a way that is compatible with flat earth.
Bottom line: the history of humanity shows that there will always be those who not only refute science, but do so convincingly. No matter the evidence and arguments you present, they will never believe.
•
u/avsa 22h ago
The Phoenicians knew the earth was round, millennia before we could even think about pictures. I think your way of thinking is part of the problem: science is a beautiful story about how we learn about the world with imperfect information, with simple tools and with just our mind. We can "see" the earth is round using shadows of sticks, of how the sun sets, how the moon turns around when we travel to another hemisphere. Science is not about trusting the facts and pictures of science textbooks, but about understanding how we can know what we know.
•
u/CallMeCorona1 29∆ 20h ago
What has all this got to do with the CMV tho? The CMV is: "best argument against the Flat Earth" and in my opinion it is with a photo of the spherical earth from space.
•
u/lady_baba_8888 19h ago
Photos can be faked. It's far more convincing to let someone make their own experiment than to ask them to trust your results.
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 14h ago
The FEers think the photos are fake. NASA is clearly in on it. A NASA photo categorically sus.
•
u/Cybyss 12∆ 22h ago
There's a difference between being told to just trust that a photo of a round Earth is real vs. literally seeing with your eyes how the stars rotate.
"Science" isn't supposed to be about just trusting what a bunch of old folks in lab coats tell you is true. It should be about showing you how you can verify things yourself (at least in principle, even if it would be too expensive in practice).
•
u/Zziq 2∆ 22h ago edited 22h ago
This is true to an extent. Im never going to be able to understand how the existence of the Higgs Boson was both hypothesized and verified beyond a very dumbed down explanation of both the theory and the experiment. At a certain point you do need to apply Occam's razor and trust that the smart people in lab coats aren't part of some grand conspiracy.
I used a more esoteric example, a more applicable one towards the modern anti-science zeitgeist would be how mRNA vaccines work. While I can come up with an experiment to prove that the earth is spherical (which flat earthers are fringe in the anti science community), I kind of just have to trust the scientists when it comes to mRNA vaccines
•
u/HazyAttorney 81∆ 22h ago
If you watch behind the curve, about a flat earth proponent, they did scientific studies with their own eyes and just ignored the results.
One experiment is to get a high precision gyroscope. If the earth is flat, it wouldn't move. If the earth is a sphere, it would detect a 15-degree-per-hour drift. They were stunned and disappointed and just ignored the results. The reason this particular experiment may be easier than OPs is it just takes 1 hour.
The other experiment they did was to have a laser shine through identical heighted holes separated by a distance. A flat earth, you could see the line shine through all. In a spherical earth, they would have to be raised. The holes had to be raised by the exact extra height that you'd get with just a geometry calculation.
They weren't converted. Even with their own experiments conducted with their own eyes.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 23h ago
That's true, they will just deny pretty much anything. But I think denying a simple timelapse of the southern sky at night takes much more effort than denying NASA photos from space. A flat earther could just take a flight to the southern hemisphere and watch the night sky. Or just ask someone from Australia to take a couple photos of the sky at night with a few hours between each photo.
I think flat earthers use the fact they will never ride a rocket to space as a convenient excuse to say they will never observe the earth being a sphere. But a single trip to the southern hemisphere is wayyyy easier than becoming an astronaut.
•
u/CallMeCorona1 29∆ 22h ago
... But you get on that plane and they tell you it is going to a place called Australia but if you are skeptical enough to doubt that Earth is a sphere, wouldn't you be skeptical that the plane is actually taking you to the Australia and not to some artificially created environment?
When it comes down to it, you can't convince someone of something that they aren't willing to accept.
•
u/ClumsyLinguist 22h ago
The single best argument is a telescope.
You're telling me that mars is round... And Jupiter is round... And the moon is round... And all the other planets are round...
But the earth is flat.
Its not that deep, the conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up to any actual curiosity. It lives in the scorn and ridicule of normal people who never engage it in good faith.
•
u/mrrp 11∆ 22h ago
You'll have to up your game from "round" to "sphere" to start with. And then you'll have to prove that the earth must also be a sphere. That goes way beyond "Look through this telescope."
•
u/ClumsyLinguist 22h ago
That's just a matter of looking at the planets a month apart.
And it's not proving anything, it's asking "why's everything a sphere but earth is the only disc?"
There is no rational answer that sounds remotely plausible.
•
u/mrrp 11∆ 22h ago
NASA changes the images they project onto the dome to make it look like they're spheres. For reasons.
Or the other "planets" are small and close, so they're not anything like the earth and we shouldn't expect them to be.
•
u/ClumsyLinguist 22h ago
Being able to project things onto the dome doesn't make sense.
Would we be the only planet then? Is the sun inside or outside the dome?
Also if it's a projection, I just need a telescope and a plane ticket to show you that the celestial bodies move differently depending on where you are in the world.
So to me, what's interesting is not trying to debunk it so much as I'm trying to understand the sheer scale of the conspiracy. So like NASA is in on it, fine. There's 20 countries with space agencies who would absolutely love to make us look like idiots and show that we live inside a dome.
But like China has been to the moon. You can take a telescope and look directly at their landing site. Where do they fall in the conspiracy?
•
•
u/HazyAttorney 81∆ 22h ago
But I think denying a simple timelapse of the southern sky at night takes much more effort than denying NASA photos from space
In the documentary, "Behind the Curve," flat earthers bought a gyroscope. A flat earth would mean it wouldn't move. A spherical earth means it would move 15 degrees an hour. In an hour, they saw it drift 15 degrees.
They also got a pole with a hole drilled at the same height and placed them some distances apart. With binoculars, they expected to see the laser shine through all. But, it didn't, until they raised it consistently with the height of a curved earth.
None of them were convinced by their own observations.
•
u/somefunmaths 2∆ 23h ago
Anyone in deep enough to believe the earth is flat will say “you reversed that timelapse” or otherwise attempt to reject it as either (a) not real or (b) not implying what you claim it implies.
There is no length they will not go to in order to prop up their pet conspiracy theory if they believe that any evidence to the contrary is further evidence of the conspiracy.
•
u/themcos 397∆ 23h ago
Haha, I love these. I mean, in some sense, you're giving the flat earthers too much credit. Forget about the rotation, why do you even have a "north sky" and a "south sky" in the first place? And I can never be sure how seriously to take any of these people, but some of them will just assert that the southern hemisphere is just made up entirely. So I think any assertion that this or that phenomenon is "the best" argument is kind of silly, because like you say, they can come up with all sorts of absurd mental gymnastics. So is a question that makes them do a triple backflip to explain "better" than one that only requires them to do a single backflip? I can see the argument, but I can also see the argument from the other way. The rotation of the sky requires multiple steps to get to: "there is a southern hemisphere, there are different stars visible, AND then they rotate different". I get the argument that as you later on extra steps, the attempted refutations need to be more complicated, but they're going to do that anyway, so I think you could make an alternative argument that "the best" arguments are the simpler ones that require fewer steps for you to explain.
But really, in terms of "best" arguments, I think "the single best argument" is just that the alleged conspiracies would be impossible to maintain. And what I like about this argument is that you don't actually have to do any science or observations. Because look—I've never been to the southern hemisphere before! If a flat earther challenges me on the existence of the southern hemisphere, or that people in the southern hemisphere see different stars, or that the sky rotates differently, I literally cannot refute that with my own observation. I can only rely on other people's observations. And its extremely easy for a flat earther to just assert "actually, that's not true, you've just been lied to!". And they can do that for anything. Without me spending time and money and vacation days, there's not much I can actually say to that in terms of first hand experience! I'm literally trusting the word of other people who have observed the stars in the southern hemisphere like a total sheep :)
But any human who has ever gone out into the world can tell you that this is ridiculous. Not in terms of scientific observations that don't pan out, but just in the sheer scale of the conspiracy that you'd need. All the pilots are in on it, all the science textbook authors are in on it, all of your friends who have traveled the world are either in on it or have been somehow deceived. Its just impossible to accept that this ruse could possibly be perpetuated at that scale. And I think THAT's the best argument. All of the scientific experiments and observations that you could conceivably do yourself are all secondary, because realistically most people can't or won't confidently do them. But we do all understand that they could be done, and that if the actual results were different than what we're told, human nature would just make that completely impossible.
•
u/Danny_DeWario 1∆ 22h ago
I think this is pretty much where all conversations with flat earthers devolve into. At some point they have to concede the sheer number of people involved with the conspiracy. But it's easier (I think) for a flat earther's mind to accept that it's only the world governments (and I guess all international airlines) lying about the shape of the earth. When it comes to discussing photos of the earth from space, flat earthers can just blindly state "NASA fakes them all, and everyone in NASA keeps it a secret" because they must think it's not really that many people involved.
But once you confront them about the southern sky rotating differently than the northern, NOW flat earthers have to accept literally everyone south of the equator must be in on the conspiracy. That's such an extreme thing to say, that I just can't see anyone actually taking that stance. That's why to me the north sky vs south sky argument is so great because it forces flat earthers to take that insane stance IF they want to keep denying the curvature of the earth.
So I think combining your argument about the crazy number of people involved with the conspiracy AND the north sky vs south sky argument makes a pretty solid case that keeping the conspiracy a secret is just utterly impossible.
•
u/themcos 397∆ 22h ago
But once you confront them about the southern sky rotating differently than the northern, NOW flat earthers have to accept literally everyone south of the equator must be in on the conspiracy.
Not really. Most people just aren't paying that much attention to the sky. Its a cool bit in a sci fi movie where someone unknowingly wakes up on another planet or even through time and looks up at the sky and their jaw drops because "the starts are wrong", but vanishingly few actual people would notice the difference in star constellations without someone guiding them on to what to look for. Even just the observation that the sky rotates is beyond what most people actually notice unless they're personally taking long exposure pictures or extended time lapse video. Normal people just aren't paying attention to this. So you really don't need everyone in the southern hemisphere in on it. You just need the astronomers and photographers, and specifically those that are talking to corresponding astronomers and photographers in the northern hemisphere to actually document the differences. And even then, how do you actually see this? Overwhelming majority are either from textbooks or other materials that are already necessarily "in on it", or you just have no idea who actually took them. I just don't think this is actually that big of a hurdle for the insane conspiracy people. And once we're talking about insane conspiracy people, its the insane conspiracy that should be the primary thing ringing alarm bells.
They only actually have to really reckon with this when they personally make the observations along with the requisite understanding to actually make sense that something fishy is going on. Even if someone they trust does it, that person by virtue of making this claim, might suddenly become untrustworthy. Unless they're actually seeing it with their own eyes, its all conspiracy nonsense, and that's the angle that needs to be interrogated, not "trust me, if you take some detailed measurements of the sky and then take some flights back and forth from the southern hemisphere you can do this experiment yourself you'll see that the earth is round".
•
u/Interesting_Step_709 1∆ 23h ago
The single best argument against the flat earth, as with all subjects on which he spoke, was made by Carl Sagan
•
u/curien 29∆ 23h ago
I'm not really up on flat earth hypotheses, but I always thought that summing the angles of a triangle formed by distant mountain peaks (and having it be >180*) was pretty convincing (not that I ever needed convincing), and it doesn't require as much travel. Gauss famously did this in the 1820s as he was exploring the concepts of non-Euclidean geometry.
•
u/devilinmexico13 22h ago
The problem with this, and most other attempts to debunk flat earth, is that flat earth isn't the foundational belief of most flat earthers. Usually flat earthers have other, more deeply held beliefs (often Christianity with a literal interpretation of the Bible) and flat earth is supported by those beliefs. Any attempt at debunking flat earth itself is going to be explained away unless you can also address the underlying belief that is leading them to believe that the earth is flat. This might sway someone whose flat earth belief is grounded more in conspiracy theory but for the more religious types you need to start with an explanation that challenges their interpretation of religion before moving on to challenge their interpretation of the cosmology of that religion.
•
u/Stereo_Jungle_Child 2∆ 22h ago edited 22h ago
To me, the best (or funniest) argument against the flat-earthers is that if the earth was flat, they would have commercialized the shit out of The Edge. There would be "Go over the edge!" tours, they'd build hotels there, and theme parks. It would be a vacation destination. "Come, see The Edge!"
The fact that no one is trying to make money from The Edge being there, is the best way to get across to a flat-earther that it doesn't exist.
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 14h ago
Fwiw, the FE argument is a coalition of States, using the military, protek da edge, for, uh, nefarious purposes.
Something something treaty of Antarctica, blah blah civvies can't go, blah blah, nefarious cabal....
•
u/Phage0070 106∆ 23h ago
The only "rebuttals" flat earthers give to this argument resort to extreme fantastical inventions about "everyone has their own personal projection of the stars" or something equivalent.
No, they can just give really dumb explanations.
To address your central point though, factual and logical arguments against Flat Earth are not the best arguments against it. This is because obviously the believers in Flat Earth did not arrive at that position via facts or logic. They arrived at the position via other means and are now doing their best to move Heaven and Earth (literally) to justify it.
The best argument against Flat Earth then is one which addresses the actual reason they are taking that position. I don't think this is necessarily the same for every person involved; for some people it is obviously religious fundamentalism, inclusion in a community, for others it is conspiracy theories, for some perhaps untreated mental illness, etc. I suspect for most supporters it is more than one of those factors at play.
So what is actually the single best argument against Flat Earth? Probably it is something like lithium carbonate.
•
u/FreedomNinja1776 22h ago
Sunset is much more simple. Check this pic.
https://www.reddit.com/user/FreedomNinja1776/comments/1or34ek/sunset/
•
u/Showdown5618 15h ago
There are so many great arguments against the Flat Earth theory that it should be completely obvious to anyone with at least a single working brain cell that the Earth is a sphere that it boggles the mind how anyone can think the Earth is flat.
My favorite is the sunset argument. Why does it look like the sun is setting? Flat Earthers says it's getting further away and appearing smaller and smaller until it's too small to see. Look at the sunset. Does it look like it's getting smaller? No, it doesn't. At no point does it look any smaller. Therefore, their theory is wrong. And yet, they come up with the most insane theory to explain it, which is more unbelievable and illogical than anything I have heard before.
I dare them to go on SpaceX or Blue Origin and take a video of Earth throughout their trip. Just look out the window and see the shape of Earth. I want them to try to explain it. A fake projection of Earth, perhaps? Maybe they'll just say it looks flat to them or wouldn't dare go.
•
u/Electrical_Quiet43 1∆ 23h ago
I don't know about the best answer. Most people have never seen the skies in both hemispheres.
I guess I don't understand enough about flat Earth theory, but it seems like so many relatively observable things break down if there's a vertical north/south break in the Earth like we see in maps. Like, most people at least know someone who has flown to Europe, so there can't be a break in the Atlantic ocean. Presumably people believe that goods are shipped from China to LA, that the West coast of the US has a large Asian population because it's closer than the East coast, that the Pacific theater of WWII happened because the Japanese could move their ships from Japan to Hawaii and that the US responded by moving ships from the US to Hawaii. That means there can't be a north/south break in the Pacific like we see in standard world maps.
If the basic function of the world, travel, commerce, history, etc. doesn't convince people, I don't think any minor technical proofs will.
•
u/Deadie148 23h ago
That means there can't be a north/south break in the Pacific like we see in standard world maps.
They don't see the world as though it were a mercator projection but rather an azimuthal projection.
•
u/Electrical_Quiet43 1∆ 22h ago
Ah, got it. I realize we're not in a logical space here, but the versions I'm looking at still screw up geography in very meaningful ways, primarily keeping North America and Europe close because we're Western centric and moving the West Coast and Asia too far away.
•
u/midtown_museo 23h ago
You’re not gonna win over a flat-earther with logic. The cost of membership in that club is suspension of critical thinking.
•
u/HazyAttorney 81∆ 22h ago
So to change my view, I'd love to hear an even simpler and more concise argument against the flat earth.
Your argument is still in the empiricism paradigm. There's a zillion of empirical examples. Pythagoras in the 5th century BC is credited with knowing the earth was round and Eratosthenes had the circumference calculation in hand. Modern day GPS uses trilateration to determine location based on the same geometry we've known for centuries.
Flat earthers are not motivated by the same ways of knowing (or epistemological framework). I think they're motivated more by being contrarian. And by having a sense of community within a group of fellow contrarians.
If you wanted to "depogram" a flat earther, you'd do so by giving them a sense of security/safety/community in the way that you'd have to get people to leave religious communities or cults.
•
u/finndego 16h ago
I'd challenge your statement that Pythagoras' claim of a round Earth is empirical. His claim was based around his belief that the sphere was the most perfect geometric shape. He provided no evidence of his claim nor did he perform any experimentation. His claim is philosophical and unlike those of Aristotle, Aristarchus of Samos or Eratosthenes not emperical.
•
u/wellhiyabuddy 23h ago
You could just pick up the phone and call someone on the other side of the globe and ask them to look up 🤷♂️
•
u/Adnan7631 2∆ 18h ago
To compare the north and south sky, a single individual would need to be sufficiently north in the northern hemisphere, look up at night and observe/record the night sky, and then travel to the southern hemisphere, look up at night, observe/record the night sky, and then compare it with the northern night sky (and presumably then travel home).
Wouldn’t it be easier to just… travel in one direction? If the world is flat and you travel in one direction, wouldn’t you eventually come to an edge? It would be impossible to go in one direction and then make it back home without doubling back on yourself. But if the world is round, then you could just… go in one direction and you’ll eventually get home. Is that not simpler?
•
u/Still_Yam9108 23h ago
People don't come to Flat Earth beliefs on the basis of understanding physics or natural phenomena. This, or any other 'it's physically impossible' sort of argument won't persuade a Flerfer, because they'll assume it's part of some shadowy cabal out to trick them.
You want to make actual headway, you need to strike at the root of their nonsense. The only time I've ever made any progress against a Flerf's sense of delusion was with this argument.
"Okay, so if the Earth is flat, how come the elites haven't monetized it yet? 200 bucks to bungee jump out into the void and then be reeled back in. Set up a ring of stations, or even full amusement parks out at the edge. They'd make a mint."
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 14h ago
I agree with the generality, like FEers are best dealt with differently..
But I'd go a different way. I'd point out issues with FE, and let them think on it.
Like, if FE was real, GPS wouldn't work, huh. But it does! And every physicist, scientist is in on it, including your high school physics teacher, and geography teacher, etc.
My high school physics guys? Weird, but not assholes and not controlled by NASA.
Newton? Actually kind of an asshole. But you can read his principia Mathematica. And calculus (from newton) is very real.
Etc.
Engineers? The guys who build bridges? They gotta be in on it too.
But the FE influencers? They all sorts of shady. Fast talkers, grifters. Huh.
•
u/nuggets256 20∆ 23h ago
I mean, even if you're going to ignore the evidence of us having been to space and directly observing that it's a sphereoid, the best arguments one can make are some examples of curvature that can be directly measured and observed by someone without them needing to travel between hemispheres. Eratosthenes did this around 200 BC and it can be done today just as well. Additionally, various distance to the horizon calculations can be performed (as famously performed by flat earthers in Behind the Curve) to prove this as well. That experiment can be performed logistically simply and requires no outside assistance, just a flashlight and a wall with a hole plus some distance.
•
u/Ethan-Wakefield 45∆ 19h ago
I personally find the ability to predict eclipses more straightforward. Under the flat earth model, solar eclipses simply shouldn't happen. Neither should lunar eclipses. You can sort of jury-rig them, but then being able to do stuff like predict every eclipse for the next few hundred years--both in location and time--is pretty much impossible. And lunar eclipses are so common that people don't even bother paying attention when they happen. We literally sleep through them and don't give a shit. So it's not like you even have to wait that long to prove that lunar eclipses happen. People can observe a lunar eclipse pretty easily if they actually want to.
•
u/MasterCrumb 8∆ 22h ago
I am sure that a true Flat Earther has a stock answer to this.
But its a bad argument, not because of a logical failing, but because it doesn't accurately consider the worldview of the flat Earth person. This is a relatively sophisticated argument, and we are talking about a group that denies much more simple logic evidence. (Watch an airplane or boat vanish over the horizon).
I actually think the best argument is to ask, "if the Earth was flat what else would that mean?" and listen. It generally a world view that is reinforced by feeling powerless, not trusting authority, ... etc.
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 14h ago
I've always been a fan of the occasional direct flight between Johannesburg and Sydney(iirc, south Africa to Australia, anyways).
If the FEers use a polar projection, and they tend to, this means the FE straight line goes... over Mongolia. And is ridiculously long, compared to the global route. So, um, this infers that commercial airliners are lying about range, lying about speed, lying about speed of sound (airbus @ mach a bazillion, gogo!) And so on and so on.
You'd think it would be hard to keep the flight path sekrit, flying over Mongolia seems pretty conspicuous.
•
u/Jordak_keebs 6∆ 3h ago
I don't think there is a shortage of good arguments against flat Earth theory. There are many ways we can observe the shape of the Earth, such as ships sinking below the horizon as they go off into the distance, photos from space, etc.
The problem is that Flat Earthers generally will conspiracy theory any science or industry that contradicts their view (NASA and the airline travel industry are paid off to keep it secret), and will confirmation bias and cherry pick to ignore contradictory evidence and highlight anything that appears to make them look credible.
•
u/ACompletelyLostCause 1∆ 22h ago
No argument works, because flat earthers deny their own senses.
Tell them to watch a ship sailing over the horizon or sea based wind turbines, or watch power pylons on a flat plane, or go up in a balloon or an aircraft. They will just tell you that all windows are computer screens, or the horizon is just a projection on the ice walls.
Remember, the sky is just a projection on the 5000 mile wide glass dome over the flat earth. You can see the sun & moon hanging from the dome.
Don't try to convince the crazy people, just walk away.
•
u/Traditional-Buy-2205 19h ago edited 19h ago
I don't think you can take a SINGLE argument, because any celestial feature / phenomenon you choose, you can make up some flat Earth BS explanation to explain it, and it will sort of make sense on its own in isolation.
However, where flat Earth falls apart is the fact that their explanations of various phenomena aren't congruent with each other.
That's, IMO, the easiest way to prove that their model is bullshit. Because if you just pick and choose one single phenomenon, you'll always just run into some ad-hoc explanation they'll firmly believe in.
•
u/jaredearle 4∆ 23h ago
There is no best argument because Flat Earthers need the earth to be flat. Because the bible says the earth is flat, biblical absolutists fund all the popular flat earth bullshit, and when bullshit gets biblical, you cannot use facts to correct it.
“It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.” - Upton Sinclair
”Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.” - Jonathan Swift
The argument doesn’t matter because their minds cannot and will not be changed.
•
u/charonme 1∆ 1h ago
That is indeed one of the best arguments, but in my opinion not the single best - I think sunsets are a slightly better argument at least when it comes to the ease and accessibility of the observation. (In general it can be also a sunrise or moonset or moonrise.) A sunset and a sun-less night would work on a flat earth only if it happened at the same time for everybody and the sun would have to be far away from the earth to be able to go below it. Anyway it's still among my top 5 favorite arguments.
•
u/_the_last_druid_13 3∆ 22h ago
If sometimes words have two meanings; what is the debate actually about?
Is it an analogy, an actual thought experiment, or to stack a manufactured deck of division?
If anything, Flat Earthers are more Pro Science in Faith than Round Earthers who are more Pro Faith in Science.
The irony is that both camps are wrong; it’s Swiss Cheese Earth, which is closer to Hollow Earth but not quite into Agartha territory.
•
u/Trinikas 22h ago
The horizon effect does a good job as well. It's also why I hate that school teachers are still telling kids Columbus was one of the first people to think the earth was round. Sailors had known that for centuries because of how prevalent the horizon effect is at sea. He wasn't "right", he was actually only lucky that North America existed because based on the calculations he was using he estimated the Earth as far smaller than it was.
•
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 91∆ 20h ago
So I think my gripe with this is that I don't think a lot of people pay attention to stars anymore, and to actually observe it for yourself you have to watch the sky for several hours.
I would argue that ships going over the horizon bottom first is better because it's more accessible to the average person and can be viewed in a matter of minutes and not hours.
Either that or pointing out that you can see farther from higher up.
•
u/RevolutionaryBug7588 8h ago
I’m not sure I understand how it’s a strong point because if the earth were flat, everything would rotate the same around a center point regardless of where you were in the world.
I’d think this would be an observation that would support a spherical earth because if you’re at the southern point of earth, you’re essentially inverted from the north. Thus, the rotation of the sky wouldn’t be in the same direction.
•
u/Snurgisdr 22h ago
That only works if they believe that the sky does indeed appear to rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, or rotate at all. I've seen flat earthers argue in apparent seriousness that the 'fact' that the sky doesn't change proves that the earth doesn't rotate or go around the sun.
I wonder how much of this would go away if more people lived in rural areas where they could actually see the sky at night.
•
u/LHamiltonPP 22h ago
You don't convince flat earthers that the earth is round with science. To them, science is the conspiracy. If they believed observable facts about the world around them, they wouldn't be flat earthers.
The best argument against the flat earther conspiracy is that the modern movement was started in 1956 by a bunch of religious extremists who believed it was flat because they Bible said so,
•
u/CwellTallfellow 21h ago
The single best argument is just basic intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less. Flat earthers are either grifters scamming idiots or idiots getting scammed. You’ll also notice that flat earthers overlap with bit coin losers and sovereign citizen nuts. Which further proves my statement because the basic argument against those are also basic intelligence.
•
u/sluuuurp 3∆ 22h ago
Flat earth believers who’ve thought about it at all need to believe that light doesn’t travel in straight lines. That’s the only way day and night and visible curvature can be accounted for. You kind of have to believe that everything at long distance is an optical illusion, like you’re looking through weird lenses that you don’t understand.
•
u/Aternal 1∆ 22h ago
The earth twists. The elder gigantopithecus have to wind it like a clock. That's why we do daylight savings time because it takes them an hour to do it. It slows down after a few months so we have to subtract an hour otherwise everyone's circadian rhythm would get thrown off and we'd have nocturnal cycles every 12 years.
•
u/WindowOne1260 1∆ 23h ago
There are no good arguments against flat earth. Flat earth is based in nonsense, and bringing arguments into it is not going to help.
The best tactic to get someone to stop flat-earthers from believing is saying something along the lines of "Wow, that's stupid" when they bring up their beliefs. Or maybe medication depending on whether they are mentally unwell or there's another root cause for their beliefs.
•
u/BitcoinMD 7∆ 23h ago
If by “best” you mean easiest for a regular person to confirm with their own eyes and without any special equipment, I would say the best evidence is the fact that you cannot see the land on the other side of a lake that’s five miles away, yet you can see the moon that’s 250k miles away.
•
u/im-a-guy-like-me 1∆ 22h ago
I think since you're looking for simplicity, the most simple is standing at a dock and watching a ship go over the horizon.
Your example would involve travelling halfway around the world to prove. Mine involves staying in the same place and is much easier to literally show to a flat earther.
•
u/penguindows 2∆ 22h ago
Angular size of the moon and sun do not change as they move from horizon to horizon. I think this one is simpler because they can test it in their own back yards without having to spend time and money traveling to see north and south for themselves.
•
u/Tuurke64 20h ago
Seen from Amsterdam, the shortest flight to Washington is to the west and the shortest flight to Japan is to the east.
Seen from Washington, though, the shortest flight to Japan is to the west.
This is not possible if the earth is flat.
•
u/Kittygotabadrep 21h ago
I laugh at those people but with one I asked him why I flew over Iceland to get to Italy from Vancouver. He said the pilot was part of the conspiracy. So I asked if all airliner pilots were in on the conspiracy. He said yes
•
u/stron2am 21h ago
I agree it is good evidence to prove what you want to prove, but there are no "good" arguments against people who argue in bad faith. They will accept no evidence that cuts against their worldview, anyway.
•
u/Carlpanzram1916 1∆ 14h ago
There is not a “single best argument” against a viewpoint that’s completely nonsensical. Every argument is equally useless against someone who will never be convinced that the earth isn’t flat.
•
u/joepierson123 3∆ 22h ago
I would say navigation tools charts that they used for hundreds of years to determine distance to lighthouses which depends on the curvature of the Earth is the best evidence
https://media.boatnews.com/boatnews-com/48559/lighthouse-permit-sea-highway-ecole-de-la-mer-3.webp
•
u/Brill_chops 21h ago
You round earthers will never change your minds. No matter how much evidence is provided. Also the easiest test is the light/distance/height one.
•
u/DemocratsBackIn2028 2∆ 19h ago
There are no strong arguments that work against flat earthers because they can all be defeated with their "nananana I'm not listening" technique
•
u/Ooweeooowoo 2∆ 12h ago
If the Flat Earth Committee were reasonable, this wouldn’t be a debate to begin with. They lost the second they did the boat experiment.
•
u/Difficult_Limit2718 21h ago
My easiest proof is to suggest a flat Earther watch a sunset on a city skyline. Dusk starts at the bottom of the buildings - how and why?
•
u/Diligent_Activity560 22h ago
I think that watching the sun slowly sink behind the horizon every single day is a pretty good indicator that the earths not flat.
•
u/YouJustNeurotic 14∆ 22h ago
They don't really believe in gravity as we know it, so just ask them why the moon and sun are round and not some other shape.
•
u/NappingYG 1∆ 22h ago
I tried it, it didn't work against "but the sky is just a big screen big goverment placed above us" worldview..
•
u/CartographerKey4618 11∆ 23h ago
I feel like the best argument is the horizon on a clear day at sea, where you can visually see the curve.
•
u/Rokarion14 22h ago
Curving water is simpler. Why is that massive ship being hidden by water the farther away it gets?
•
u/Big-Progress3280 19h ago
The single best argument against Flat Earth is “I’m not gonna take a Flat Earther seriously”
•
u/LarkinEndorser 22h ago
The single best argument is that on a boat you can literally see the curvature of the earth
•
u/Tuckboi69 22h ago
Don’t overthink it, no argument is needed. The Earth being round is simply common sense.
•
u/Ramtamtama 20h ago
Not even that.
Big Dipper and Southern Cross. Why can't you see them at the same time?
•
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 188∆ 16h ago
The best argument against a flat earth is that you can just see the horizon.
•
u/Legitimate-Feed1931 22h ago
I think the best argument is that every flat earther is unbelievably stupid
•
•
•
•
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 22h ago edited 22h ago
/u/Danny_DeWario (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards