/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8888280
I think flat earthers showcase quite elaborately how you can build a pretty convincing lie by simple trial and error.
People saying that the earth is flat have been around for years and years, but in the early days
their arguments were pretty weak and everone saw through their act immediately.
Over the years they have dropped the arguments that were easily disproven or dismissed and focused on the ones that force people out of
their comfort zone, easily baffle them, or just require lengthy explanations to be proven wrong.
Over time they have gotten so good, that people who weren't around to see how retarded their first steps were can be
convinced that there are actual people who believe in flat earth.

I think it's mostly because your average normie can't disprove an experienced flat earth theorist.
They can't just summon perfect counter-arguments out of their ass if they don't do some research first, so they
have to resort to simply trusting that what they've been told since they were children is correct.

This curvature thing is a prime example of an argument that's designed to baffle people.
Every time there'll be someone telling about camera lenses but a flat-earther just needs to go
>camera lenses
with a smug anime girl attached, and suddenly for someone who isn't proficient with how cameras or their lenses work, neither argument is better
than the other. Not when looked at in a vacuum where there is no prior assumption that the earth indeed is round.
In the end most people can only trust in what they think is closer to truth, and while basically everything is built on trust and assumptions
it's pretty irritating when it comes to play this close to the argument. It makes you unable to completely trust either side.

You could resolve the situation by doing some research and understand how things actually do make more sense when earth is round but let's face it; You won't do that.