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 kommentar(er)
