I thought to ask the question of ChatGPT. This is what I asked and this is what it answered.
a) What are the top 10 arguments that flat earthers say prove the earth is not a sphere?
b) On what scientific principle is their logic based? and
c) Is their logic/application of the principle accurate or flawed, and if so, how?
a) Here are the top 10 arguments that flat earthers commonly use to support their belief that the earth is not a sphere:
1. The horizon always appears flat and level, without any curvature.
2. There is no observable or measurable curvature to the surface of the earth.
3. The horizon rises to eye level no matter how high you ascend.
4. Airplanes and ships do not adjust their course for the curve of the earth.
5. There is no proof that the earth is moving or spinning.
6. The earth’s gravity is not strong enough to hold oceans and people on its surface.
7. The pictures of the earth from space are faked or doctored.
8. The sun and moon are much closer and smaller than mainstream science suggests.
9. There are no actual photos of the earth from space.
10. The flat earth model can explain all phenomena without the need for complicated science.
b) The logic of flat earthers is based on the principle of empirical observation, which is the practice of verifying or validating a hypothesis through the use of empirical evidence. They claim that they have not observed any proof of a curved earth, and therefore believe that the earth must be flat. However, their logic is not accurate, as it ignores significant evidence that supports the idea that the earth is a sphere.
c) In reality, flat earthers’ logic and application of the basic principle of empirical observation are deeply flawed.
Firstly, the fact that the horizon appears flat to the naked eye is not evidence that the earth is flat. It is actually due to the limitations of our perception and the relatively small size of the earth compared to the vast expanse of the universe.
Secondly, there is plenty of empirical evidence that confirms the curvature of the earth, including photographs from space and measurements of the earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse.
Lastly, while the flat earth model may explain some phenomena, it cannot account for other fundamental aspects of the natural world, such as gravity and the movements of the planets and stars.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the flat earth argument is not based on sound scientific principles and is fundamentally flawed.