I have to disagree on your formulation. Observation as #1 is accurate, but then it goes to hypothesis and measurement is a feature of experimentation, not distinct steps.

Go ahead. Form a hypothesis where earth is a ball based on no observation, measurement, or experiment of curve.

I’ll wait.

They don't like to see you winninnnnnn, they wanna see you in a penitentiaryyyyy

You initially observe something and then construct a hypothesis to explain that and have it make testable predictions. You proceed to test those, almost like you are trying to falsify it and as long as it remains unfalsified, it stands, even tho you cannot 'prove' it 100%

If we don’t observe any curve, why would you hypothesize a curve?

🐖

It’s like you’re saying I can’t prove a square piece of paper, is a square 100%. I’m sorry, but that is false.

Well, there are many potential observations that could lead us to think we might be on a spherical surface, for example, ships over the horizon disappearing hull before mast, the behavior of the stars and how we visualize them, even just the horizon being there, you could consider it being a physical obstruction.
And then we have our hypothesis, its predictions, and we can test it to see if it matches.

When we hypothesize the earth is flat, based on observations, the tests pass.

Only if you have a conflicting belief, where you hypothesize different, based on no observation, would you argue otherwise.

That is not a provable method.

The ships going over the curve is debunked in my mind

half bad

Ok, so we observe the horizon, looks flat, maybe the earth surface is a flat plane. That becomes our hypothesis. So, we have to test it. What does the flat earth predict the horizon distance to be and how it interacts with distant objects?
These are questions that we would think about in the scientific method.

And experimentation is after the hypothesis where we test it

We need to measure how far the boats are out

If ships did go over a curve, we could obviously see that curve at a higher altitude. But we don’t.

Seriously how can u get 120 k feet up and not see a curve but the boat 3 miles away at ground level is going over a curve

Right.

That is why hypothesis' are so helpful and necessary, because we could have expectations and see if what we observe matches what we expect given the hypothesis. Like the visibility of earth curve and rates of obstruction

We need to measure the boats how far are they while we can still see it

I think you’re stressing hypothesis because you have a belief that you can’t actually prove, Astral.

Even if we see it the globe model excuse is it’s a mirage like Chicago from Michigan

Astral isn’t a glober

Spare me the word play.

He defends it though sometimes

I know he isn’t.

Hypothesis' are meant to be falsifiable and testable, I can't really hide behind it

Even if we measure the boat and it’s ten or 20 miles out they will say mirage

<a:02spin:525944085778006032>

I believe what can be observed

And verified by the populace

Globers often try to hide behind it, by spending so much time debating what hypothesis even means. It’s like if I were to ask them if they know what the shape of the earth is, they would reply with, ‘it depends what your definition of ‘is’, is.. It’s exhaustingly redundantly obfuscating.

I never see that happen myself, so idk where you chat

Hello

Hi

The same areas that produce arguments where they try to undermine observation. Because it doesn’t support them.

https://youtu.be/CoJSrctxpk8

what do you guys think about this