Here's the thing: I understand the logic to the idea that you absolutely need to see something for yourself in order to believe it. But you should also understand the logic behind the requirement for internal consistency of a model in order for that model to be valid in the first place.
Flat earth modeling is done from observations of isolated events, after which explanations are given to these events that completely contradict other explanations; moreover, they (if they're especially ambitious) try to cherry-pick little snippets of physics or mathematics to support their models and either butcher them completely, or fail to synthesize them with all other knowledge of these fields. This should be evident when the only thing that appears to be a real consensus among all flat earthers is the map. Everything else is more-or-less up for grabs.
The problem with relying upon simple explanations to our observations is when we can use experiments or concrete mathematics to disprove them. For example, the simplest explanation to a mirage is that the mirage is actually there, i.e. we see it, therefore it is there. But mirages are explained through a deeper understanding of light, temperature gradients, angle of perception, etc. Aiming for a simple explanation is fine, but that explanation must account for all of the data. In another example, if we were the size of bacteria and were standing on a basketball, the horizon of the basketball would certainly appear flat, but that doesn't make it so.
We have millions upon millions of very, very intelligent people who either study in fields or work in industries relevant to information regarding a spherical earth. In contrast, we have a few bloggers and YouTubers who virtually never demonstrate through trigonometry, geometry, physics, experimentation, etc., but rather only observation and weak thought-experiments who contend that all of the stuff they don't understand is wrong. Now *that* should be suspicious!
Right you have a point here, cherry picking data is also very common in conspiracy theories.
If you look at the overall pictures: lightspeed, refraction , quantum mechanics, etc.
You realize that the globe model is more probable, but still I would not dismiss the flat earth theory neither, its interesting at least to explore these facts, and bring more critical thinking to people.
People should always question things and critical thinking is always good.
For example if you look at the lightspeed, flat earthers say that the sun is 3000 miles away, but with lightspeed you can count how far it is by just measuring it, both you can measure the lightspeed in case that one is not genuine, and using that you can measue how far the sun is.
Then with quantum mechanics, you know that the expanding universe with globe objects in it is the plausible one, while the flat earth barely has physics to it. Yes they can claim that density is causing the mechanical events, instead of gravity, but when you go to the quantum side, then flat earth makes less sense.
Or at least these are my observations, but i`m open minded to both theories.
