CathInfo.com

And the fact that the FE movement is growing (despite Big Tech suppression) means that there's enough evidence out there to make it very, very compelling to intelligent people. 

If we have learned anything from the past 10 years, it's that the truth is usually (but, not always) censored and buried by Big Tech. And there's even those who admit that FE isn't dumb, they just think it's wrong.


Which comes back to an original observation I had about this "movement": which is that of presuppositions. If you start from the presupposition that the earth is a globe, then it logically follows that data will be interpreted in such a way to make all cosmological observations adhere to that basis. And the same can be said of FE. For example, gravity: this is a divergence between FE and GE, because GE absolutely requires some sort of force acting upon objects to explain how they would adhere to the globe. Whereas, FE does not require such a force because density and buoyancy suffice to explain directionality and mobility on a flat plane; with even electromagnetism being the go-to for adherents of both FE and GE. When the GE adherents faces the FE adherent on the topic of gravity, they are incredulous that the FE adherent would reject this theory because it is to essential to their ideas of the nature of the earth, but it isn't essential to the FE adherent. Therefore, conflict.

We see this occur amongst the geocentric vs heliocentric debate, as the presuppositions of geocentrism diverge from that of heliocentrism. Leading to differing interpretations of the data. It is more a philosophical problem, at its root, than a merely empirical one. As depending on how you interpret data (what you already presuppose about the world) is going to determine what the outcome (hypothesis/theory) from that data will be. Unfortunately, there is no neutral ground in this matter as philosophy is going to creep in somewhere. And we see this with the constant back-and-forth between FE and GE adherents about refraction, where sometimes it is visible and atmospheric qualities cause a mirage versus it always being visible and explaining why we can see further than the supposed curve.

Sorry to bump, but i've been looking into this myself. It's clear the round shape on windows on airplanes makes world look curved... What really got me to believe in FL was the whole "Antarctica" thing. And water cant "flow up". The whole gravity thing makes no sense to me either. When it come to the globe thing, I think the globe represents the universe as a whole, not "earth". You could encompass a flat earth in a sphere.

While I definitely agree with your second point, the figure of the earth and the nature of the universe around us are of key importance to all humans on earth and we actually rely on knowing the truth about this question in our every day lives, more so in modern days than in the past, whether we realize it or not.

Fact of the matter is, the more educated people are (academically or not), the less likely it is that they'll be flat earthers.

For some people it's just mind-blowing how someone can believe something so outlandish and unproven, diametrically contradicting hundreds of years of empirical observations, measurements, research and practical fields relying on knowledge of these matters. And I think this is definitely in part where the hostility comes from.

How does the earth being flat vs a globe actually impact me though? It seems more like it erodes people's trust in NASA and the power of speculation.