![]() I recommend letting philosophy do the work, specifically “ epistemic contextualism.” Getting knee deep in the vloggersphere, you might learn the details of the scientific proofs as well as painstakingly spelling out each error in every flat-earther’s rebuttal. And even if you know the details, unless you’ve indulged existing flat-earth literature, you are unlikely - right here, right now - to be able to cogently, concisely, and comprehensively respond to the lengthy rebuttals flat-earthers will give to each and every scientific proof. ![]() But unless you’re unusual, you probably don’t know all of the details of the scientific proofs. Perhaps you then start to appeal to science. ![]() The standard of proof is higher, they say. Or possibly you rely on the testimony of astronauts. Consider one, standard, flat-earth line: “Can you prove the world is round?” Maybe you point to the ( often artificially assembled) photos of Earth from space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |