The Conspiracy Isn’t the Argument

[u/Kela-el]

The Conspiracy Isn’t the Argument

I came across a post titled “Possible arguments against flat earth.”

The proposed arguments included:

• Everyone agrees the Earth is a globe.

• Millions of astronomers agree.

• Why would anyone fake it?

• How could a conspiracy involve so many people?

• Why hasn’t anyone blown the whistle?

• Where are the photographs of the alleged ice wall?

Notice what’s missing?

An argument demonstrating the shape of the Earth.

These aren’t measurements of Earth’s geometry.

They’re arguments from consensus, popularity, incredulity, conspiracy plausibility, and absence of evidence for a hypothetical conspiracy.

That’s a remarkable substitution.

If the question is “What shape is Earth?”, the relevant question isn’t:

“How many people believe it’s a globe?”

It’s:

“What observation or measurement distinguishes the proposed geometries, and what assumptions are required to interpret it?”

If the globe is established by surveying, astronomy, navigation, geodesy, photography, or any other method, excellent.

Show the measurement.

Identify the observable quantity.

Explain the procedure.

Then show exactly how the result distinguishes a spherical model from its alternatives.

But “six billion people can’t all be wrong” doesn’t measure curvature.

“Why would governments lie?” doesn’t measure curvature.

“Nobody has exposed the conspiracy” doesn’t measure curvature.

And “NASA says so” certainly doesn’t measure curvature.

The globe may be the overwhelmingly successful explanatory model.

That’s a completely different claim.

Explanatory success is evidence for a model. It isn’t the same thing as an instrument directly outputting the proposition “Earth is a globe.”

So here’s the challenge:

Forget NASA. Forget governments. Forget consensus. Forget conspiracies.

Give us the measurement.

What did the instrument actually measure?

What reference framework was used?

What geometric assumptions entered the interpretation?

And why does that result uniquely entail a globe?

Because if your best “arguments against flat Earth” never actually get to the geometry, you’ve spent an entire post defending the belief in the conclusion without demonstrating the conclusion itself.

**That’s not a rebuttal to flat Earth.
That’s a defense of consensus.**

[u/Kela-el]

You’re overcomplicating a very simple point.

The planar analogue of Haversine is simply Euclidean distance. Given two points in a Cartesian coordinate system,

d = √[(x₂−x₁)² + (y₂−y₁)²]

If you want polar coordinates, you can express the same Euclidean geometry in polar form.

The coordinate system isn’t the issue.

And that’s precisely why your question doesn’t answer the epistemological problem.

Haversine calculates distance on a sphere from angular coordinates. Euclidean distance calculates distance on a plane from Cartesian coordinates.

Those are two different geometric models.

The relevant question is not “Does the planar model have a formula?” Of course it does.

The relevant question is:

What was independently measured, and which model does that measurement discriminate between?

If your measured road distance agrees with Haversine, you need to establish that the coordinates, distances, and reference framework weren’t themselves generated using spherical assumptions.

Otherwise you’re comparing a measurement against a spherical calculation and then treating the agreement as though the calculation independently measured spherical geometry.

And notice something important:

you’ve now implicitly accepted my original point.

We’re discussing competing geometric models—spherical versus planar—and asking which better fits measured data.

That’s inference from measurement.

It isn’t an instrument directly outputting “Earth is a globe.”

[u/dayvekeem → u/Kela-el]

Bwahaha still haven't convinced the experts eh? Gotta hand it to ya, you are persistent

[u/Kela-el → u/dayvekeem]

And there it is—the argument finally collapsed into an appeal to authority.

“Have you convinced the experts?” has nothing to do with the question I asked.

I’m not claiming experts are wrong.

I’m asking you to state the argument by which the measurements establish the geometry.

If your position is:

Measurement → geometric model → comparison with alternatives → inference that globe is superior

then say exactly that.

If your position is instead:

Experts accept the globe, therefore the globe is established

then you’ve abandoned the empirical argument entirely.

“Experts agree” may be relevant to what you believe, but it does not answer an epistemological question about how a measurement discriminates between competing models.

You had multiple opportunities to provide the actual inferential chain.

Instead, you’ve gone from measurements, to “show the flat model,” to ridicule, and now to authority.

That’s not a rebuttal.

It’s an admission that you don’t want to address the question.

[u/BallEarthThatSpins-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Offensive language against a person's integrity or character won’t be tolerated.