I mean, if you think about it, the null hypothesis really should be that the Earth is flat. That is after all what the human eye perceives at first examination. It was proven conclusively to be round millennia ago, but it still required proof. But if you had no other evidence than your eyes, Occam's Razor would suggest the Earth is flat.

Unless you has a view of the distant horizon in which case you might alternatively conclude it's a convex lens shape.

With just your eyes you see it is round as ship masts dissappear last as they sail away. Also with just your eyes it must be round as the curved shadow on the moon surface during a lunar eclipse can only be produced by the shadow of a sphere.

In addition to what everyone else is saying, I'll say that relying solely on your own perception is a pretty weak scientific measurement. That's like trying to tell me a banana isn't radioactive because it doesn't taste like it. If you use any form of measurement to check the curvature of the earth, then you see that it is round. Using your eyes is the absolute worst way to base fact.

Also, this wasn't targeted at you. I'm not calling you dumb or anything, just making the argument. I know you are presenting the devil's advocate stance in good faith.

Flat earther confirmed.

The point is that the reasonable null hypothesis is flat. It's the starting point, before you apply the scientific methods.

It's quite simple to disprove that however, particularly if you have access to an ocean, or large body of water.

I'm all for them doing their own research and questioning what they've been taught, I just wish they'd take the L here and focus that skeptical energy elsewhere.

But we already have much more evidence than our eyes. If one of the explanations require to disregard millennia of worth of scientific advancements, I don't think you can invoke Occam.

Even in the times when geocentricism was the prominent accepted version, the shape was accepted as non flat.

That work is done, if you they want to challenge it they need to do their bit. Else it's faith.

particularly if you have access to an ocean, or large body of water

Or a stick and some feet.

With just your eyes... And a big lake or sea... And a ship... And the knowledge that water lies level.

Similarly it's not exactly understood from birth that lunar eclipses are the earth's shadow.

You gotta work all these things out and make more complicated observations than just looking at the horizon.

The null hypothesis isn't "devil's advocate" it's just where you start from with no other information.

The moon rotating at the same rate as its orbit and always facing earth could be used to reinforce the convex shape idea.

Climb a mountain?

Most flat earthers don't believe space exists, so talking about orbits is already a step beyond them.

The horizon is always flat, no matter how high you climb. You’d need a rocket to get far enough away from the surface to see its curvature.

Shucks. Looked up photos and all I see is more mountain range must have confused it with fictional media. Well know I know truth for sure.

Lol this is literally their exact thought process.

You sayin' a pizza wouldn't make a curved shadow if lit from the right perspective?

Checkmate, globe fundie.

Checkmate

You're right, I should have come up with a way to tell the earth is flat with just your eyes but of course nothing around to cheat with like things to see with your eyes.

A slightly perceptible curvature on the horizon only indicates a convex spherical cap, like a Frisbee.

Occam's razor doesn't apply because a flat earth is an exceedingly complex and irregular explanation for the even the most basic naked eye astronomical observations we can make.

I think you probably get the point.

Like, right up until a lunar eclipse I guess?

The sun is round, the moon is round, the stars are round

Biconvex vs Globe should be the original argument. Disc vs Ball.

Do flat earthers think of sharp edged biconvex earth? Like that would have had to be the case if you could sail off it.

Do they think that it's like a Minecraft world where they could see the dirt under the grass at the edge?

Humans had to explore the globe W-E or E-W. No practical way early to cross a frozen tundra and then sail going N-S or S-N.

We would have found out a lot quicker in human history if the polar caps didn't exist.

"Go around" round. It is almost like it is intuitive that the earth is round.

What's happening at the edge is what is the argument. Everyone knows where they are standing is flat. (Which I think is your point)

You'd have to come up with a plausible explanation of what could happen. Like "You'd sail off into a void"

Yet a globe has no edges and doesn't need a plausible explanation about a weird edge of the earth.

It should have aways rested that you had to prove the earth wasn't a ball.

Nice AI slop. Here is the original

The only way this answer could have been more hung up on the letter instead of the spirit of that comment, would be if you had said "with just your eyes you can watch a video explaining that the world is round".

I dunno, all you need to see that something is going on is 100m or so of elevation with an overview of a medium sized lake

That's not simpler than a sphere, pointing again to Ozzam's razor. Spheres are the simplest geographical shape.

The usual explaination is "They don't let you get to the edge", which convrniently allows them to not explain what happens there. Only the conspiracy knows.

But you can't see anything past the horizon. Occam's razor suggests there's nothing beyond it

Maybe you should get your eyes checked, because mine tell me that the earth is curved.

By that logic, nothing exists beyond what I can see.

There's a documentary about flat earthers called Behind the Curve where they do try to prove the earth is flat.

It's genuinely one of the funniest things I've ever watched.

Half of it seemed to be one guys futile attempts to get into a milfy redhead's pants.

Could we use a sextant in a flat world?

But, the Null Hypothesis generally IS that X does not exist until you receive evidence otherwise.

That's pretty much how we all work, we just have very different sources and standards when it comes to which evidence is taken seriously.

Except I can percieve a curve to the horizon, then walk to the point that was previously horizon and percieve that curve continues, thus drawing the conclusion that the curve must continue all the way round.

The shadow thing could also be from a disk. I mean, it's not, but disks also make round shadows.

Well don't complain to me when you fall off trying to walk on some ball. i tried to warn you. 🤷 Roundies smh...

As the moon sets the shadow would become a flat line on the moon. The shadow would change shape and only be a prefect circular curve for a short time.