Really? I’ve seen it firsthand quite often. It’s very obvious when you’re in a kayak, because you’re so low to the water.
Comment on Can't argue with that logic
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 months agoIn my extensive experience (I live near the coast) of watching ships, I find that by the time they’re far enough away to be disappearing, they’re also small, indistinct and hazy. I can’t honestly tell you that in decades of looking, I’ve ever seen a clear cut case of the bottom of the ship disappearing before the top. It’s all very indistinct indeed.
If you want to convince flat earthers, the ship past the horizon thing isn’t going to do it.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 months ago
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yes. Really. I find it hard to believe that people can see that clearly at the sea horizon, because I just don’t.
Maybe it’s just hazier in my part of the world, and I mainly stand or sit on the shore. The sea is very cloudy round us, whereas I know it’s crystal clear on some parts of the world. But part of me still thinks you think you saw what you think you saw because I’ve genuinely tried to see it and can’t make out the detail. Maybe it’s just that most of the boats I watch to the horizon are oil tankers, and they’re just not very tall compared to their length.
marcos@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yeah, nowadays most places where people usually see ships are so polluted that they can’t see them disappear. Also, ships are so large that you have to look a the details to notice them decreasing.
The same applies to the stars, people just can’t see them anymore, so they never notice them rotating. People also do not navigate by the Sun anymore.
People nowadays are so disconnected from Earth that they do indeed have no problem believing it’s flat.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Nope, I’ve definitely seen parts of a ship disappear. You can see the bridge and superstructure, then the upper parts of the hull, and then the whole boat. Under good conditions, you can quite clearly see the bridge, but not the rest of the vessel.
This would have been even more obvious in the age of sail.
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 months ago
This would have been even more obvious in the age of sail.
I bet it would!
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Imagine if we had some kind of tool we could use to see far away…
Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 months ago
There is no convincing them through any kind of logic or observation. The logical proof of the shape and size of the earth is remarkably simple and straightforward, with math any trigonometry or geometry student could prove on their own. Eratosthenes did it a few thousand years ago with observations from a deep well and the shadow of a vertical rod a significant and measureable distance apart on the same day at the same time. These are simple and direct observations that anyone could make and repeat themselves. If Eratosthenes proof isn’t clear enough to them, nothing will be.
There was even a documentary in which self professed flat-earthers performed a variation of this experiment with some careful arrangement of a laser over a large lake. Unsurprisingly, they did measure the curvature of the earth (with much less precision than Eratosthenes), but they still couldn’t accept the results.
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I think we both agree that if someone really doesn’t want to believe something, they’ll disregard things that conflict with their world view.
What I suspect we’ll disagree on is the extent to which everyone, very much including those of us who consider ourselves rational and sensible and at the science-trusting end of debates, form our beliefs about reality via a purely social and societal process of parental beliefs, teacher beliefs, peer beliefs and reading on and offline. Not through experiment. Rarely through actual evidence. Mainly through believing other people who we think are telling the truth or better informed than us.
This is the context for my point about the ships over the horizon thing. It’s not even very convincing evidence to someone who already believes the conclusion and sees a lot of ships sail away.
Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 months ago
Stop trolling me by trying to blur the line between scientific processes and social belief structures. Claiming that I don’t also apply logic and scientific thinking to analyze my own beliefs is also petty rage-bait, as if epistemology hasn’t also existed for a very long time.
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Honestly, I’m not trying to troll you at all. We all come across people who believe crazy stuff, but if you genuinely want to persuade people, recognise where they’re coming from.
I have some important questions for you if you honestly believe that your belief system was arrived at by the empirical process:
Firstly, think about that rather bold claim and compare it with how many things you believe are true and how much rigorous empiricism you’ve engaged with yourself, personally. (You can’t count any times when you just trusted someone else who claimed it by appeal to authority, a well-known logical fallacy, because that would be both a social source of belief and literally illogical.)
Secondly, what counts as correct science and what counts as bogus science, and by what means is that decided? What process decides which information goes where? Who makes the decisions and why are they the ones who do?
Thirdly, how do you, personally find out about that stuff? How many journals do you read regularly? How many things written by the people who saw the evidence did you ever actually read? Who wrote the things you did and do read, and why do you believe them?
I’m honestly very skeptical of how much self reflection you put into how you know what you know given that my claim that pretty much everyone comes to their beliefs about the world through social interactions (rather than via experiment and direct evidence) is so new to you that it made you angry. Yes, epistemology has been around a long time, but you simply can’t have studied Philosophy of Science and be flabbergasted by what I’m suggesting. It’s another example of you trusting someone else and believing their conclusions without going into it all on detail and questioning it for yourself. Before you get cross about that too, please read the next paragraph.
No one can read it all. No one can repeat even a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the experiments. You can’t be an expert in all branches of science and philosophy even if you tried. You can’t even begin to read it all. So you take it on trust. This isn’t bad. It’s sensible. It’s how you were (correctly) brought up - trust what your teachers tell you about science, because your parents, who you trusted implicitly before you even walked through the door of preschool.
If the New York Times claimed that some professors at Cornell had found a tweak of relativity that removed the need for a theory of dark matter or dark energy because it matches the observed mass and expansion of the universe, and that the new theory also removed the inconsistency between relativity and quantum mechanics, you would likely belive it, especially if other papers ran with the same story and clever people you know told you more details having read a write up in the New Scientist magazine.
And yet by the same process, we knew that Pons and Fleishman had attained nuclear fusion in the lab. How did we subsequently know that it was bogus? By the same social process. Hundreds of millions of people changed their beliefs about the world twice. A handful of people did something empirical.
None of this is bad. But don’t assume that an appeal to examine evidence that you haven’t investigated yourself is going to convince a skeptic. They think they’re being more rigorous than you. They weren’t brought up to believe teachers or they weren’t brought up to trust “scientists”. You won’t convince them with the same appeals to authority that work on you.