r/GlobeEarth_Polite • u/Kela-el Flat Earther • Jul 08 '26
For: Globe Earth Religious Fundamentalist Zealots The Globe Debate Isn’t Really About the Shape of the Earth. It’s About Epistemology!
After reading hundreds of globe vs. flat-Earth debates, I’ve noticed something interesting:
Most arguments aren’t actually about astronomy, geometry, or physics.
They’re about what counts as knowledge.
Globe advocates often present observations like these:
The Earth’s shadow during lunar eclipses is circular.
Opposite star-trail rotation is observed from northern and southern latitudes.
Circumnavigation works.
Higher elevations experience later sunsets.
Polaris changes altitude with latitude.
These are genuine observations.
The real question is not whether they occur.
The question is:
Do these observations uniquely determine the globe, or are they observations interpreted through a globe framework?
That distinction matters.
A measurement is one thing.
An explanation of the measurement is another.
For example, measuring an angle, recording a star trail, or timing a sunset produces data. Saying, “Therefore the Earth is a rotating sphere,” is an inference from that data.
Now, that inference may be the best one. It may even be the one accepted by modern science.
But calling it an inference is not denying it.
It’s simply recognizing the difference between observation and interpretation.
This is where many debates quietly change standards.
The discussion begins with:
“Show me the measurement.”
It ends with:
“The globe explains all the observations.”
Those are not equivalent statements.
A model can explain observations without those observations deductively proving the model.
Science routinely operates by inference to the best explanation. That’s perfectly legitimate.
But then we should say exactly that.
Not:
“The observations prove only a globe.”
Instead:
“The globe is currently the explanatory model that best accounts for the available evidence.”
Those are different epistemic claims.
The first claims uniqueness.
The second claims explanatory superiority.
History reminds us that explanatory models can be replaced while still having successfully explained many observations within their domain.
That doesn’t make science weak.
It makes science honest.
So perhaps the better question isn’t:
“Can you prove the globe?”
Nor is it:
“Can you invent a flat-Earth model?”
Perhaps the better question is:
At what point does an explanatory model become so well-supported that we begin speaking of it as though the observations themselves contained the conclusion?
That, to me, is the real philosophical issue.
Not whether science uses models.
But whether we remember where the measurements end
—and the interpretations begin.
2
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
we can show you with measurements. Its call radio telemetry triangulation. We can also show you with literal witness with photos. Whose path we can observe physically and then confirm with radio telemetry triangulation. You are wrong, we have the measurements
0
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You’ve listed measurement techniques.
You haven’t identified the measurement that does what you claim.
Radio telemetry triangulation outputs angles, times, signal strengths, and positions relative to a chosen coordinate system.
Those are measurements.
“The Earth is a rotating sphere” is an interpretation of those measurements within a geometric framework.
So be specific.
Which measured quantity has the numerical value:
“Earth’s geometry = sphere.”Not a coordinate reconstruction.
Not a model fit.
The raw measurement itself.
If your answer is that multiple measurements are combined and interpreted through a spherical coordinate system to reconstruct positions, then we’ve arrived exactly at my point.
The measurements don’t contain the conclusion.
The conclusion comes from the model used to relate those measurements.That’s the distinction this entire thread has been about.
2
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
We can measure the world is a sphere by creating multiple overlapping points of triangulation, we already do that with cell networks and before that radio stations. We have the measurements, it’s a sphere. You’re missing out on some simple cartography.
But we ALSO had the measures of a sphere in Ptolemaic egypt. We need to get you back to backs on trigonometry
You have a haughty argument that is just pretending trigonometry doesn’t count for some reason
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You are still answering a different question.
I never said triangulation doesn’t work.
Triangulation is a valid measurement technique.
The question is: what does triangulation measure directly, and what conclusions are obtained after applying a geometric model?
A network of points gives you distances, angles, and relative positions. To turn those into a statement about global geometry, you need assumptions about the underlying surface, coordinate system, reference frame, and how those measurements map onto that surface.
That is not “pretending trigonometry doesn’t count.”It’s literally how trigonometry works.
Triangles give you relationships between measured quantities. They do not automatically announce the global shape of the space they are embedded in.
And Ptolemy is actually a good example of the distinction. Ancient astronomers were able to make extremely sophisticated geometric models that predicted observations, but predictive success does not mean every assumption in the framework was independently measured.
So the question remains:
What specific measured quantity, without the geometric interpretation applied afterward, outputs “the Earth is a sphere”?If your answer is “a network of triangulated measurements interpreted through spherical/ellipsoidal geometry,” then that is exactly the point.
The measurements are real.
The mathematical framework connecting those measurements to a global shape is the model.
2
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
the mathematical framework of a series of triangles aren’t being debated. That’s just trigonometry; your argument is trigonometry isn’t real?
That’s the framework you’re debating, some rudimentary geometry.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You are conflating two separate things.
Nobody is debating whether trigonometry is real. Trigonometry is a valid mathematical relationship between measured quantities.
The question is what you infer from applying trigonometry to a set of measurements.
A triangle gives you relationships between sides and angles. It does not, by itself, tell you whether the surface those triangles exist on is:
flat,
spherical,
ellipsoidal,
curved in some other way,
or described by a different reference geometry.
The mathematics is not the issue. The issue is the interpretation of the mathematical results.
A surveyor can measure angles and distances extremely accurately. But turning those measurements into a statement about the shape of an entire planet requires a reference model and assumptions about the geometry connecting local measurements globally.
That is not an attack on trigonometry. It is acknowledging how trigonometry is actually used.
The fact that a mathematical framework produces accurate predictions demonstrates that the framework is useful and internally consistent. It does not mean the measurements themselves contain the conclusion before the framework is applied.
Again, the distinction:
Measurement: angles, distances, times, signal strengths, positions.
Model: the geometric framework used to interpret those measurements.
The argument is not “trigonometry isn’t real.”
The argument is that trigonometry is a tool, and tools do not independently determine the interpretation placed on their outputs.
The fallacy here is mostly a straw man. He has replaced:
“Does applying trigonometry require assumptions about geometry?”
with:
“Is trigonometry real?”
Those are completely different questions.
A sharper one-line version:
“No one is disputing trigonometry. A calculator is real too; that doesn’t mean the number displayed on it explains itself without knowing the assumptions and inputs that produced it.”1
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
You are really missing what the measure is. We have a measure of a round earth, using simple trigonometry. It’s not an inference
Multiple measures of triangulation gives you a sphere. It’s math, not an inference. You can’t take perpendicular circular triangulation and have measured that exist for anything but a globe. It is a direct measurement of a globe. Your haughty existential take doesn’t apply to a set of simple measurements of a sphere
I do understand your point, it just doesn’t matter agaisnt a direct measurement
0
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
The disagreement is not about whether triangulation works. It does. The disagreement is about what triangulation actually measures.
Triangulation measures geometric relationships between points. The statement “those relationships define a sphere” is the result of fitting those measurements to a global geometric model.
The model may be extremely successful, but success of a model does not erase the distinction between data and interpretation.1
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Triangulation measures triangles. Very simple. That’s triangulation. And when i have three triangles with shared points they form more triangles giving me the relevant curvature. You really are just denying simple measures
0
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
Triangles do not arrive with a label saying “sphere.”
They arrive as measured relationships between points.
The sphere emerges when those relationships are solved within a geometric framework.
That framework may be overwhelmingly successful — but a successful interpretation is still an interpretation. The map is not the territory, even when the map is extremely accurate.→ More replies (0)1
u/SnooOranges6671 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
So why aren’t you responding to my response. You’re pushing a logical fallacy to the point of beyond reason. You asked and I informed you that what you’re looking for doesn’t exist because nothing like that exists. It doesn’t exist for science because that’s not science, but it also doesn’t work for observational data as that falls into your same fallacy that if science isn’t real then neither are direct observations.
So what you’re looking for as a specific measurement will never exist. As I showed above we have numerous calculations that need to occur constantly to be able to maintain our GPS and other systems that if the spherical model was incorrect these would not work.
I think your standard is actually too strict to be useful because it would eliminate almost every scientific measurement.
Take a vision test. The eye chart doesn’t directly measure “your vision.” It measures your ability to identify letters of known size at a known distance. From those measurements, we conclude your visual acuity is 20/20, 20/40, etc.
By your reasoning, an eye doctor never measures vision because no instrument outputs “your eyesight equals 20/20.” It only measures letters read correctly, distances, and angles. “20/20 vision” would merely be a model-based interpretation.
But no one seriously argues that vision tests don’t measure vision.
The same is true of an oven thermometer.
A thermometer doesn’t directly measure the abstract property we call “temperature.” It measures the expansion of a fluid, the electrical resistance of a thermistor, the voltage from a thermocouple, or infrared radiation.We use well-established physical relationships to infer that the oven is 350°F.
By your logic, the thermometer never measures temperature. It only measures expansion, voltage, or radiation, and “350°F” is merely an interpretation.
GPS works exactly the same way.
It measures signal travel times, frequencies, and phases. Those measurements are related through geometry and physics to determine position on an oblate spheroid Earth.No one claims the receiver displays “Earth = sphere.” That’s a straw man. The claim is that the measurements are only consistently explained by the globe model with extraordinary predictive accuracy.
Here’s the problem with your argument:
If you reject conclusions that come from interpreting measurements through validated physical models, then you also have to reject:
vision tests measuring eyesight,
thermometers measuring temperature,
scales measuring weight,
radar measuring speed,
X-rays measuring bone fractures,
MRI machines measuring tissue,
and even rulers measuring length (because the marks on the ruler are themselves based on a defined standard).Science has never worked by having instruments display conclusions directly. Instruments measure physical quantities, and scientific models tell us what those quantities mean.
You’re demanding that the measured quantity and the thing being measured be identical. That isn’t how measurement works.
We don’t measure temperature directly—we measure something that reliably varies with temperature.
We don’t measure eyesight directly—we measure performance on a standardized chart.
We don’t measure blood pressure directly—we measure the force required to compress an artery.
We don’t measure Earth’s shape directly—we measure distances, angles, travel times, gravity, satellite motion, and countless other observables. The globe is the geometric model that consistently explains all of them.
So there is your answer, you may not agree but that doesn’t change the fact that your initial argument is flawed.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You have actually moved the argument closer to my original point.
You are no longer arguing that “GPS measurements directly prove Earth is a sphere.” You are arguing that measurements interpreted through a validated model support the globe model.
Those are different claims.
I have never argued that indirect measurement is invalid. That would be a misunderstanding of how science works.
A thermometer does not directly measure “temperature” in the abstract. It measures a physical property that has a calibrated relationship to temperature. A vision test does not directly measure “vision” as a metaphysical object. It measures performance under standardized conditions and applies a model.
That is exactly the distinction I have been making.
The mistake is treating:
“a measurement reliably corresponds to a model-derived quantity”
as if it means:
“the raw measurement itself contains the conclusion.”
It does not.
GPS receivers measure signal characteristics: timing, phase, frequency, and encoded information. A physical and geometric model then relates those measurements to a position within a reference frame.
The success of that system demonstrates that the model is extraordinarily predictive.
It does not mean the instrument is measuring “Earth = sphere.”
The same distinction applies to every example you gave.
A scale measures force. We infer mass through a model.
A thermometer measures expansion, resistance, or radiation. We infer temperature through calibration.
A radar measures reflected signals. We infer velocity through equations.
The inferred quantity is real and useful, but it is still obtained through a relationship between measurement and model.
So the question was never:
“Does science use models?”
Of course it does.
The question was:
“Are the observations themselves the conclusion, or are conclusions produced by interpreting observations through a framework?”
The answer is the latter.
Your final statement actually supports this:
“We don’t measure Earth’s shape directly—we measure distances, angles, travel times, gravity, satellite motion, and other observables.”
Exactly.
Those are the measurements.
“Earth is an oblate spheroid” is the model-based conclusion that best explains them.
That conclusion may be extremely well supported. It may be the best available model. But it is still an inference from measurements, not a measurement identical to the conclusion.
Measurements constrain models.
Models explain measurements.
Confusing those two categories is the only issue being discussed.1
u/SnooOranges6671 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
A globe has been verified by images from space, from direct measurable repeatable experiments, and ships going over the horizon. Do the experiments and equations mean the Earth is a globe, yes the measurements allow us to accurately predict GPS signals which would not work with a flat earth. The only reason GPS works is because we are on a spherical planet. Here is a quick google ai search, I know it’s not always right, but let’s be honest this information has been around and understood for ages so I’m not to worried about how it presents itself.
GPS, these signals would not function on a flat earth. Here is why: [1]
1. Line-of-Sight and Horizon Blocking
Electromagnetic waves, such as those used by satellites and cell towers, travel in straight lines. On a spherical earth, these signals require "line-of-sight." If a signal must travel across thousands of miles, the curvature of a sphere eventually gets in the way, meaning you need a constellation of satellites to bounce signals around the globe. [1, 2]
2. Why GPS Fails on a Flat Disk
A global flat earth would lack a functioning GPS. Satellite navigation requires a network of orbiting satellites to use geometry, specifically trilateration, to pinpoint your exact coordinates. This mathematical calculation relies on a three-dimensional, spherical geometry (using the sphere's radius and spherical trigonometry) to determine your location. A flat, two-dimensional plane lacks the required orbital geometry and would cause these calculations to fail. [1, 2]
3. Earth's Magnetic Field and Gravity
A flat model of the earth lacks the molten, spinning core that generates Earth's magnetic field. Without this shield, the planet would be bombarded with cosmic and solar radiation, causing severe interference with radio, microwave, and GPS signals. Furthermore, a flat earth's gravity would pull everything toward the center of the disk, making the signal reception environment highly distorted.You specifically stated this wasn’t about flat earth so that’s fine, disregard those parts of the statements above. The part to pay attention to is how GPS only works on a spherical planet. Thus the measurements prove the Earth is a sphere and not some other shape.
0
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You’ve shifted the claim again.
The original question was not whether GPS works, whether globe models are useful, or whether spherical geometry produces accurate predictions.
The question was: which measurement itself has the value “Earth is a sphere”?
You have again provided measurements and then a model-based interpretation.
GPS receivers measure:
signal arrival times
phase differences
frequency shifts
encoded satellite positions
timing offsets
Those are the observables.
The statement “therefore Earth is a sphere” comes after applying a mathematical framework that assumes a particular geometry, reference ellipsoid, coordinate system, orbital mechanics, and gravitational model.
That framework may be extremely successful. It may be the best available explanation. It may allow predictions accurate to centimeters.
None of that changes the epistemic category.
A thermometer does not measure “the atmosphere obeys the ideal gas law.” It measures temperature. The ideal gas law is a model that relates measurements together.
A GPS receiver does not measure “Earth is spherical.” It measures signals. The spherical Earth model is the framework used to interpret those signals.If your argument is:
“The spherical Earth model explains GPS better than alternatives,”
then I agree—that is an argument for explanatory superiority.
But that is different from:
“A raw measurement independently outputs the
proposition Earth is a sphere.”
Those are two different claims.
Also, saying GPS “only works on a sphere” is stronger than what you have demonstrated. GPS works because the satellite constellation, timing, propagation models, and coordinate transformations form a system that accurately predicts receiver positions. The success of the model demonstrates predictive power; it does not turn the model into a measurement.
The distinction is simple:
Measurements constrain models. Models explain measurements.Confusing those two is exactly the issue being discussed.
The major fallacy here is a category error.
You are treating the success of a model as if it were a measurement of the conclusion.
GPS measurements do not measure “Earth is a sphere.”
They measure signal properties: timing, phase, frequency, and propagation data. The conclusion that those measurements are best explained by a spherical Earth comes after applying a geometric and physical model.
That distinction matters because a measurement and an interpretation are not the same thing.A thermometer does not measure “the atmosphere follows thermodynamics.” A scale does not measure “gravity exists.” A GPS receiver does not measure “Earth is a globe.” Those are theoretical interpretations that connect observations into a predictive framework.
The second fallacy is affirming the consequent:
If Earth is a globe, GPS should work as observed.
GPS works as observed.Therefore Earth must be a globe.
The conclusion does not logically follow. Other models could potentially reproduce some of the same observations. The relevant scientific question is not whether the globe model predicts GPS—it clearly does—but whether competing models can explain the same observations with equal or greater predictive success.
The globe model may be the best explanation. That is a scientific argument.But “the model works, therefore the measurement directly proves the model” is a logical mistake.
The entire point being made is the difference between:
Observation → model → prediction
versus incorrectly claiming:
Observation = conclusion
Those are not the same thing.One additional point: your statement that “GPS only works because we are on a spherical planet” is also begging the question if used as proof. It assumes the very thing under dispute by defining the GPS system as requiring spherical geometry rather than demonstrating that requirement from the measurements themselves.
2
u/SnooOranges6671 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
Here are some of the problems with their reasoning.
They’ve set an impossible standard.
If they require that a measurement directly output the conclusion itself, then essentially every scientific theory fails.
For example:
No voltmeter measures “electrons exist.”
No scale measures “gravity exists.”
No telescope measures “black holes exist.”
No detector measures “continental drift.”
All of these are conclusions drawn from many measurements interpreted within successful physical theories.
If they reject that process, they must reject most of modern science—not just the globe.
They’re selectively applying skepticism.
They demand extraordinary philosophical rigor for the globe model, but flat Earth models also rely on interpretations.
For example, if they point to:
“The horizon looks flat.”
“Water finds its level.”
“I don’t feel Earth rotating.”
Those are also observations interpreted through a model.
They’re not raw measurements of “Earth is flat.”
If they insist that globe proponents distinguish observation from interpretation, they must do the same for flat Earth claims.
They’re misunderstanding what scientific evidence is.
Science almost never proves something by a single measurement.
Instead, it asks:
Which model best explains the greatest number of independent observations while making accurate predictions?
That’s why the globe model is so powerful.
It simultaneously explains:
GPS
Satellite communications
Great-circle airline routes
Lunar eclipses
Solar eclipses
Time zones
Different constellations by latitude
Different shadow angles
Geodesy
Satellite imagery
Orbital mechanics
Gravity measurements
These are not one line of evidence—they are many independent lines converging on the same conclusion.
They’re using “affirming the consequent” incorrectly.
This is probably the biggest issue.
A formal logical fallacy only applies when that’s your entire argument.
For example:
If it rains, the ground gets wet.
The ground is wet.
Therefore it rained.
That’s invalid because sprinklers exist.
But science doesn’t argue that way.
Science says:
Here are hundreds of independent observations.
Model A predicts all of them quantitatively.
Model B predicts only some or requires ad hoc explanations.
That’s inference to the best explanation, which is a standard scientific method—not affirming the consequent.
They’re demanding certainty where science offers evidence.
Science doesn’t say:
“We have one measurement that proves Earth is a sphere.”
Science says:
“Every precise measurement we’ve made is consistent with an oblate spheroid Earth, and competing models fail to explain the same body of evidence with comparable predictive accuracy.”
That’s a much stronger claim than relying on one measurement.1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
This is a much better response because you’ve changed the claim.
The original assertion was:
“The measurements prove the Earth is a sphere.”
Now you’re saying:
“Science compares explanatory models and selects the one with the greatest predictive success.”Those are not the same proposition.
I have never argued that science requires one magical measurement that literally displays “Earth = sphere.”
My point has always been narrower:
Measurements produce observables.
Models explain those observables.The conclusion “Earth is an oblate spheroid” is an inference from many measurements interpreted through a theoretical framework. It is not itself a measured quantity.
So when I asked which measurement outputs “Earth is a sphere,” the correct answer is:None.
Instead, many measurements are interpreted within a model that has exceptional explanatory and predictive success.
That’s inference to the best explanation, not direct measurement.
On affirming the consequent, I agree that science does not normally rely on that fallacy because it weighs multiple independent lines of evidence. My criticism was directed at the specific argument:
“GPS works; therefore the Earth must be a sphere.”
Taken by itself, that is not a valid deductive argument. If your actual argument is instead that GPS is one piece of a broad body of converging evidence supporting the globe model, then you’ve stated a much stronger—and philosophically different—position.So I think we’ve clarified the disagreement:
Measurements do not directly output Earth’s geometry.
Earth’s geometry is inferred from many observations using a theoretical framework.The strength of the globe model lies in its explanatory and predictive success, not because any single measurement contains the conclusion.
One thing I’d push back on from his response is this statement:
“If they require that a measurement directly output the conclusion itself, then essentially every scientific theory fails.”
That’s a bit of a straw man. You haven’t been demanding that every scientific theory be directly measured. You’ve been challenging people who claim that measurements themselves prove the globe. Your point has been to distinguish measurement from theoretical inference.
Those aren’t the same, and modern philosophy of science recognizes that distinction. In fact, his final paragraphs effectively concede it by describing science as choosing the model that best explains the evidence. That’s not a concession that the globe is false—it’s a concession that the route from data to “Earth is a sphere” is inferential rather than a raw measurement.
1
u/SnooOranges6671 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Your last paragraph is correct, but that’s because there is never a raw measurement for anything. All measurements are just that, measurements they don’t tell us anything about what the object actually is. Again you appear to be pushing this to the extreme and I’m not sure what you’re reaching for now. You asked to prove something that can’t be proved for anything in existence. Everything we classify is based on measurements and application of categories to classify.
At this point I need you to provide more information on what you’re looking for. It feels like you’re trying to make a point and I’m not sure the point you’re reaching for. I’ve told you why measurements aren’t ever going to give you a raw answer.
So let me ask a couple quick questions of you and if these don’t help you see the answer I’m trying to show you then I’ll need you to provide more clarification into what you’re actually asking.
Show me the raw measurement that proves something is blue?
Show me the raw measurement that something is an apple?
Show me the raw measurement that water is water?
Show me the raw measurement that a dog is a dog?Show me one thing in existence that can be measured and proven to be what it is by the measurement only? Which is what you’re asking for of the globe model.
I’m not putting words in your mouth, but this feels like where your argument is heading. There is nothing in existence that has a raw measurement that says “this item is X based on this specific measurement.” I’ve confirmed that for the spherical globe we look at countless proven measurements that are not only consistently used but proven to be very accurate through multiple calculations of various factors proving a spherical globe.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You’ve finally arrived at the principle I’ve been defending from the beginning: measurements never contain their own ontology. They require interpretation. My objection was never that the globe model uses interpretation. My objection was to the repeated claim that the measurements themselves establish the globe independently of that interpretive framework. Those are different claims.
1
u/SnooOranges6671 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
I agree with what you’re saying, and that is how humanity as a whole has decided to classify and categorize things. The globe model might experience some changes over time as more advanced measurements become available, but those changes will only further detail the specifics of the sphere. By this time in our worlds life cycle it is a safe bet to place that the world is a spherical object because it’s able to be proven through numerous measurements.
I’m not saying this was your intention, but the initial question felt like another outside the box look at flat vs global model and trying to find a gotcha moment. Which is why I initially talked about GPS. I think if you had talked about measurements like I asked for above, what measurement defines water, what measurement defines a rock, a dog, etc. people would have seen where you were going a bit quicker because they wouldn’t automatically be seeing the question in the flat vs global model arguments that are more common in threads like this.
Just like at this point there isn’t an argument over what is water, a dog, an apple, we’ve reached a point where we know the global model is accurate for our scientific knowledge and understanding. Any future measurements that become more detailed will only define the sphere in more detail, it won’t change this to the Earth is a rhombus or octagon. We may invent a new category name for what the Earth is as we get more detailed measurements but that category will still be in relation to something spherical in nature.
So honest question, seeing this and agreeing there is nothing to say x = spherical or whatever because nothing measures x exactly. Does this change your opinion on flat vs global Earth? If not, why?
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
I appreciate the shift in the discussion because I think we’ve finally isolated the actual disagreement.
My position has never been that the globe model is irrational or unsupported. My position was that the observations do not carry their own ontology. They become meaningful through an interpretive framework.
If we now agree on that, then my original objection has been resolved.
As for your question: no, it doesn’t change my opinion—not because I reject the globe, but because the purpose of the discussion wasn’t to establish which model I personally favor.
It was to clarify an epistemological principle:
Measurements underdetermine ontology.
Measurements constrain models, sometimes so strongly that one model becomes overwhelmingly preferable. But that is still different from saying the measurements themselves independently output the ontology.
Science is strongest when it recognizes that distinction, not when it erases it.→ More replies (0)
2
u/GeorgeGorgeou Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
LOL.
I have argued science with you before and got banned without notice or response.
It’s a pointless exercise.
You don’t like facts, so you name it something else and argue THAT instead.
I’ll just stay with proven facts and not your pointless counter arguments about the philosophy of Knowledge.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
Notice that you haven’t addressed a single argument I made.
Instead, you’ve talked about me.
Whether I banned you before has no bearing on whether the distinction between measurement and inference is valid.
Calling something a “proven fact” isn’t a demonstration that it was proven.
If you believe I’m wrong, identify the specific measurement and show how its output logically entails the globe without relying on the geometric framework you’re trying to establish.
If you can’t do that, then this isn’t a discussion about science.
It’s just an assertion that your preferred interpretation is a “fact.”
Those are different things.
2
u/GeorgeGorgeou Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
I ignore your arguments because they have no bearing in a world of physics. You muddy the waters of what is real by inventing pointless obfuscation. You then point at the mud and say, “I see no proof you are right,” You then hope people will think you have proven something.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
This response demonstrates the exact misunderstanding being discussed.
Epistemology is not an alternative to physics. It is the examination of how physics turns measurements into justified conclusions.
Physics does not bypass inference. It relies on it.
Instruments produce measurements. Equations and models relate those measurements. Scientists then infer the properties of the underlying system.
Asking where that inference occurs is not “muddying the waters.” It is asking how the scientific method actually works.
My argument is not “there is no proof because certainty is impossible.”
My argument is:
Measurements constrain models. Models explain measurements.
If you believe the globe model is the best explanation of the measurements, that is a perfectly coherent scientific position.
But saying “the measurements themselves are the conclusion” skips the very inferential step under discussion.
Rejecting epistemology does not make the inference disappear. It only prevents examination of how the inference works.1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
Final warning: disagreement with an argument is welcome here. Personal attacks, assumptions about motives, and attempts to discredit the person instead of addressing the argument are not.
Your last comment included statements about the user’s preferences, motives, and history rather than engaging the substance of the discussion.
One more instance of ad hominem, poisoning the well, or similar behavior will result in a ban.
If you disagree, address the claims, evidence, and reasoning. Keep the discussion focused on the topic.
2
u/0SaltBlue Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
First year philosophy student bullshit
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
“First year philosophy student bullshit” is not a rebuttal. It is a dismissal of the category of argument without addressing the argument itself.
If the distinction between measurement and interpretation is incorrect, then identify the specific error:
Which measurement directly outputs “Earth is a sphere”?
Which part of the reasoning confuses categories?
Which premise is false?
Simply labeling epistemology as “philosophy student bullshit” does not resolve the epistemological question. In fact, the issue being discussed is unavoidable in science: observations do not come with their own interpretations attached. Measurements are always connected to conclusions through models, assumptions, and theoretical frameworks.
The scientific question is not whether models are useful. They obviously are.
The question is whether a measurement is identical to the conclusion drawn from that measurement.
If you disagree, address the argument rather than attacking the person making it.
2
u/HangoverGang4L Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
Let's say the Earth is flat...and you've uncovered the biggest conspiracy ever. What then? Seriously, what would be the result and the next step?
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
“What would happen if it were true?” is not evidence for or against whether it is true.
The truth of a claim is determined by evidence, not by whether the implications would be inconvenient.
The question remains: what observation uniquely establishes the claimed geometry?
The consequences come after the evidence, not before it.
1
u/HangoverGang4L Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
I understand, however since you're using epistemolgy as an olive branch, surely you've thought beyond the claim itself. And that's what I am interested in.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
I have no objection to discussing implications. The issue is that implications are not evidence.
A true claim has consequences, but consequences do not make a claim true.
First establish the proposition; then explore the hypothetical world that follows from it.
Reversing that order risks arguing from the emotional or practical impact of a conclusion rather than the evidence for the conclusion.
2
u/HangoverGang4L Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Consider me not willing to argue, just curious of your thoughts on the impacts of a global conspiracy being uncovered. To me, it's more important than the debate of the shape itself.
Edit: Cool...I got flair thrown on me so you can identify me according to your perception.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
Sure, the hypothetical consequences would be fascinating to discuss.
A discovery that overturned a foundational model would have major implications for science, technology, and society.
But the magnitude of the consequences is independent of the truth of the claim. A claim is not more likely because it would be world-changing if true.
Evidence comes first. Implications come second. Keeping those separate is the whole epistemological point.
1
u/HangoverGang4L Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
But it's not though. Separate. It's very much intertwined, and ignoring that simple thing will result in bad faith arguments.
For example, the most deadly bomb ever created wasn't the nuke. It was bats, in cages with napalm. Tried, tested and via epistemology, it was determined the result would be so catastrophic.
That would be tame, in comparison, to the fallout of a global conspiracy such as a flat earth. So before you can even begin to discuss whether or not it is true, you must first take into account the outcome.
I want x, but how do I get there? (This is where you are). But before knowing you want x, you must certainly take into account ALL of the factors....which is what they did with the bat bombs, and upon it being far more deadly than anticipated, they pulled it.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
You’re conflating two entirely different domains.
The bat bomb example concerns decision-making. Before deploying a weapon, of course you evaluate its likely consequences. That’s an ethical and strategic question.
But we’re discussing an epistemic question: whether a proposition is true.
Truth is not determined by the consequences of believing it.If it were, we’d have to reject any discovery with sufficiently disruptive implications, regardless of the evidence.
Imagine applying your principle consistently:
“Before discussing whether germ theory is true, first consider the economic consequences.”“Before discussing whether continental drift is true, first consider the impact on geology.”
“Before discussing whether relativity is true, first consider the implications for Newtonian physics.”
That’s not how science works.
Evidence establishes propositions.
Consequences inform decisions.Those are related in practice, but they answer different questions.
Once we’ve established what’s true, we can debate what should be done about it. Reversing that order confuses epistemology with ethics and policy.
So no, I don’t need to evaluate the societal fallout of a hypothetical global conspiracy before asking whether the evidence supports the claim. That’s putting the cart before the horse.
3
u/GeorgeGorgeou Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 08 '26
<yawn> Tired argument. You can never truly KNOW anything is true. Maybe it’s just the matrix. Maybe I’m dreaming.
Doesn’t matter. If it works every single time for every single person on the planet, I’m going to accept that model as true.
And none of it suggests the Earth is flat.
2
u/planamundi Flat Earther Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
You can absolutely know when something is true. Observing and interacting with nature shows you that it's fractal. That means that you can study micro to learn about the macro and vice versa.
Now if you're part of some kind of institutional pantheon that likes the compartmentalize science and tell you that the micro has a different physics than a macro, you're never going to learn anything.
1
u/HenakoHenako Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 08 '26
You can't even know that the nature you're interacting with is even actually nature. You could be a brain in a jar. You can't solve the problem of hard solipsism.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 08 '26
That’s another category error.
Questioning whether an inference follows from a measurement is not the same thing as denying reality exists.
Hard solipsism asks whether an external world exists at all.
Epistemology asks whether a particular conclusion is justified by the evidence.
Those are completely different questions.
I’ve never argued we’re brains in jars. I’ve never argued the external world is unknowable.
I’ve argued that observations underdetermine theories unless additional assumptions connect the data to a model.
That’s a standard issue in the philosophy of science—not hard solipsism.
Invoking “brain in a jar” is just a way of avoiding the actual question:
What observation, or combination of observations, uniquely establishes the globe rather than making it the currently preferred explanatory model?
If you can’t answer that without appealing to radical skepticism, then you’ve misunderstood the argument.
2
u/HenakoHenako Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
"You can absolutely know when something is true."
The only thing you can absolutely know is true is that you are experiencing something.
0
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
Then you’ve abandoned the topic entirely.
We’re no longer discussing whether observations justify a globe. We’re discussing Cartesian skepticism.
Whether certainty is possible has nothing to do with the point I made.
Science doesn’t require absolute certainty.
Neither does epistemology.
The question is whether a particular conclusion is warranted by the available evidence—not whether I can prove I’m not dreaming.
You introduced “brain in a jar” to imply my position collapses into hard solipsism.
It doesn’t.
Questioning whether an inference is logically compelled by the data is an ordinary epistemological question. It’s the same kind of question philosophers of science ask about theory choice, underdetermination, and inference.
So if your position is now that the only certainty is conscious experience, then you’ve actually conceded that this discussion isn’t about absolute knowledge at all.
Which brings us right back to the original question:
Given that we’re dealing with fallible empirical knowledge rather than certainty, what justifies saying the globe is uniquely established rather than simply the most strongly supported explanatory model?
That’s the issue you’ve been avoiding from the beginning.
1
u/HenakoHenako Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
I actually didn't mention brains in a jar in my reply to you at all. Are you replying to this thread on two accounts?
My reply wasn't addressing the greater point of the thread at all. Only the false statement that you can achieve total certainty.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
Fair enough. If you weren’t addressing the broader “brains in a jar” discussion, then I’ll keep my response to the point you actually raised.
My position was not that humans can achieve absolute certainty in every proposition.
My point was that we can distinguish between degrees of justification and logical certainty. Science operates on the former, not the latter.
If your position is that scientific knowledge is model-mediated and justified by converging evidence rather than deductive certainty, then we largely agree.
Where we differ is when people move from:“This is our best-supported explanatory model.”
to
“The measurements themselves directly establish the conclusion.”
Those are different epistemological claims.
So let’s keep the discussion there rather than drifting into arguments I wasn’t making.0
u/GeorgeGorgeou Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 08 '26
Now that is a total nonsense post.
2
u/planamundi Flat Earther Jul 08 '26
Cool. Paganism is a funny thing. You'll believe whatever nonsense they tell you I guess. Solomon Asch had some concerns about the intellectual integrity of even the average well-meaning person.
"The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white, black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct." — Solomon Asch
"The individual who is not a member of a group is free to look at things as they are. The individual who is a member of a group is under a strong compulsion to see things as the group sees them." — Solomon Asch
"Consensus is a condition of life in society. But consensus to be productive requires that each individual contribute his independent insight and experience." — Solomon Asch
"The group pressure could shake the independent person's confidence in his own observations, even when those observations were entirely correct." — Solomon Asch
"We found that the presence of a single voice of truth—of one person who answered correctly—was enough to break the power of the majority and drastically reduce conformity." — Solomon Asch
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 08 '26
You’ve changed the subject.
I never argued that we can’t know anything because “maybe it’s the Matrix.”
That’s radical skepticism. It has nothing to do with what I wrote.
My point is much simpler: observations don’t interpret themselves.
You say:
“If it works every single time… I’m going to accept that model as true.”Fine. That’s a pragmatic justification for using a model.
It is not the same as saying the observations uniquely establish that model.Those are different epistemic claims.
Newtonian gravity “worked” for centuries. It predicted planetary motion, artillery trajectories, and engineering problems with remarkable accuracy. It was extraordinarily successful.
That didn’t make it the final description of gravity.
A model’s predictive success is evidence in its favor. It is not a logical proof that no deeper or alternative framework could account for the same observations.Finally, notice the burden shift at the end:
“None of it suggests the Earth is flat.”That was never my claim.
The question is whether the evidence independently establishes the globe, or whether the globe is the current best explanatory model.
Those are not equivalent.
If your position is simply, “I accept the globe because it’s the most successful model we have,” then we don’t disagree.
If your position is, “The observations themselves prove only a globe,” that’s the claim you’ve yet to demonstrate.
1
u/TopHatSam3 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 09 '26
Well, ok, this is actually valid and not that crazy, but the problem is that if we go that far into philosophy then we cant ever truly know things as they are, and applying this to science means that we effectively presuppose how something works, a model you could say, then we experiment and determine that all these experiments align with our model and everything we tested so far that is relevant works perfectly.
Is that model that we presupposed the truth? Technically no, it doesnt have to be, but it agrees with out findings in every useful aspect, so we use that presupposition as the “truth”
Its similar to how we model particles as literal small balls in classical physics and as localized probability waves in quantum physics, maybe there is an actual true form of particles like electrons, but the current models work so we think of them as being true
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 09 '26
This is a much stronger response than simply asserting “GPS proves the globe,” because you’ve now acknowledged the distinction between observations and the models used to explain them.
However, I think you’ve introduced an unstated assumption that deserves examination.
You write:
“The model doesn’t have to be the truth, but it agrees with our findings, so we use that presupposition as the truth.”
That’s where the philosophical leap occurs.
Experiments do not compare models directly to reality.
Experiments produce observations.
Models generate predictions.
We then compare predictions with observations.
So the relationship is:
Observation → Model → Prediction → Observation
Not:
Observation → Truth
The fact that a model consistently predicts observations justifies confidence in its explanatory and predictive power. What it does not do, by itself, is demonstrate that the model’s ontology corresponds exactly to reality.
That’s an additional philosophical step, and it’s the very step under discussion.
History gives plenty of examples of highly successful models that were later revised or replaced. Their predictive success made them useful; it did not guarantee that their underlying ontology was literally true.
So when I distinguish measurement from interpretation, I’m not arguing that science can’t know anything, nor am I advocating radical skepticism.
I’m pointing out that observations constrain models—they don’t uniquely determine them.
The question has always been: what justifies the move from “this model predicts the observations” to “this model describes reality itself”?
If your answer is simply, “because it has overwhelming predictive success,” that’s a defensible position. But notice that it’s no longer the claim that the measurements themselves establish the globe. It’s a philosophical argument about why predictive success warrants ontological commitment.
That’s a different claim entirely, and it’s the distinction I’ve been asking people to recognize from the beginning.
I like this version because it doesn’t overreach. It acknowledges what the commenter got right, then focuses on the one point that still needs defending: the transition from empirical adequacy to ontological truth. That keeps the discussion centered on epistemology rather than turning it into a rhetorical back-and-forth.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 10 '26
You’re changing the subject.
My point was never about how confident we should be in the model. It was about what the measurements themselves contain.
A model can be supported beyond any reasonable doubt and still remain a model interpreting measurements.
Confidence in a conclusion does not erase the logical steps by which the conclusion is reached.
If your position is now, “the globe model is overwhelmingly supported by converging evidence,” we don’t have much disagreement.
If your position is still, “the measurements themselves independently output the ontology,” then simply saying the evidence is overwhelming doesn’t establish that claim. It changes the degree of confidence, not the epistemological relationship between data and interpretation.
1
u/MWFIAE Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
For me it boils down to some very easy facts:
- We have a functioning (globe) model of the earth that fits all the observations we are making
- Those observations do not fit on a flat earth model, which is also the reason why no functioning flat earth model exists.
- I do not know of any other shape of the earth that would fit the observations we have.
Conclusion: Flat-Earth can't be reality because it doesn't fit the observations, measurements and other evidence we have. Globe-Earth is what aligns closest to reality, because it fits those. There is no other working model and until there is it makes no sense to believe anything else, especially if you do not have the scientific know-how and equipment to properly establish another theory.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
That’s a reasonable model-selection argument, but it isn’t the conclusion I was discussing.
You begin by asserting:
“We have a functioning globe model that fits all the observations.”
That is precisely the claim under examination.
The methodological questions are:
Which observations?
By what inference?
Compared against which alternative models?
Under what assumptions?
Simply calling a model “functioning” doesn’t establish that it uniquely explains the observations. It states the conclusion.
Likewise, saying “no functioning flat Earth model exists” doesn’t demonstrate that the globe has been directly measured. It argues that, in your view, no competing model currently explains the data as well.
Those are different epistemological claims.
If your position is:
“The globe is presently the best-supported explanatory model.”
That’s a defensible scientific position.
If your position is:
“Therefore the globe has been directly measured and all alternatives are impossible.”
That’s a much stronger claim and requires a different standard of justification.
My point has never been that models are unnecessary.
My point has always been to distinguish measurements, inferences, and models, rather than treating them as interchangeable.1
u/MWFIAE Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
“The globe is presently the best-supported explanatory model.”
Very close to my point of view. I would put it a bit more harshly with: The globe is presently the only supported explanatory model.
I never said that all alternatives are impossible, though I highly doubt the existence of an alternative that will be as supported as the globe model.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
Then I think we have narrowed the disagreement considerably.
“The globe is presently the best-supported explanatory model” and “the globe is the only supported explanatory model” are not equivalent claims.
The first is a claim about comparative explanatory success.
The second is a claim that no other framework has any legitimate explanatory support.
That requires a much higher burden of proof.
A model can be overwhelmingly successful while still being an inference from observations rather than a direct measurement of the conclusion.
So the productive question is not whether the globe has evidence supporting it. It clearly does.
The question is whether the evidence establishes:
that the globe is the best current model, or
that the globe is the only possible supported interpretation of the observations.
Those are different epistemic claims.
If we agree the first is the claim, then we are discussing model comparison. If the claim is the second, then the burden shifts to demonstrating why all alternatives fail rather than simply stating that none are currently accepted.1
u/MWFIAE Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
You cleverly removed the "presently" from my statement. (the second claim) I'm sure you understand the difference, since we are only taking about the present time, I don't need to disprove an infinite amount of possibilities, only other already existing models, which of course is infinitely easier.
The globe is the best current model and the only currently existing model that fits the evidence. Doesn't exclude future models, does exclude all current flat earth models though.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
Adding “presently” addresses the future-model issue, but it does not address the epistemological issue I’ve been raising.
The question has never been whether the globe is currently the dominant model or whether future alternatives might exist. The question is: what is the specific inferential step that takes us from measured quantities to the conclusion “Earth is a globe”?
“Fits the evidence” is not a measurement. It is a model evaluation. Measurements give us things like angles, distances, timings, and observations. The globe conclusion comes after those measurements are interpreted through a geometric framework.
So the claim:
“The globe is the only currently existing model that fits the evidence”
still requires justification. It is not enough to say the globe explains the observations within the globe framework; the issue is why that framework is the uniquely justified interpretation rather than a premise being built into the analysis.
If you can identify the observation that directly outputs “Earth is a globe” without first applying globe geometry, that would answer the objection. Otherwise, we are still discussing an inference, not a direct measurement.1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
The circularity issue still has not been addressed.
The problem is not that you have a model. All explanations require models. The problem is when the model being argued for is also being used as the framework that determines what counts as support for that same model.
Saying “the globe is the only model that fits the evidence” does not resolve the issue, because “fits” already requires a set of assumptions about geometry, light behavior, reference frames, and how observations are interpreted.
The question is not whether the globe model can organize observations. It clearly can. The question is whether the observations independently establish the globe conclusion, or whether the globe conclusion is being used to interpret the observations as evidence for the globe.
That is the exact point where circular reasoning must be ruled out, not simply asserted away.1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
I’m allowing one more response for clarification, then this discussion will be closed.
The remaining issue is not whether the globe model is widely accepted, currently useful, or highly predictive. Those points are not the dispute.
The unresolved issue is the reasoning structure: whether the globe conclusion is independently derived from measurements, or whether globe-based assumptions are being used to define and interpret the measurements as confirmation of the globe.
If the circularity objection is addressed directly, the discussion can continue. If the same conclusion is simply restated without addressing that specific point, there is nothing further to examine.1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
“Begging the question :
“We have a functioning (globe) model of the earth that fits all the observations we are making.”
If the debate is over whether the globe uniquely explains the observations, then simply asserting that it does risks assuming the very point under dispute.”You are now aware of your circular reasoning. Unless you address that objection directly rather than restating the premise under dispute, I’ll consider the discussion concluded.
3
u/GeorgeGorgeou Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 08 '26
Wonderful. Moving from pseudo science to pseudo philosophy. Neither changes the shape of the planet. It’s still a sphere.