Flat Earthers

[JanJan]

Not really sure what to make of your post, and whether you copied this from somewhere else or what. But maybe it is a good thing to go and read up on what makes a good/decent scientific study that will stand up to peer review and scrutiny.

 

Then consider this, everything in your life revolves around science. One eg where a lot of research is involved is medicine. The drugs you take to make you feel better again went through rigorous tests (studies, based on hypothesis) before you get to swallow that pill.

If one is dismissive of science when it gets uncomfortable because it challenges one's beliefs on one side, but gladly make use of technology in this modern day on the other - then that's ignorant and hypocritical. Where we are today is as a result of years of studies and data analysis from a wide field converging into what is in front of you today. It could have been crude, and rudimentary at one stage, but science evolved and the more we understand the less it is limited by shortcomings, and thus will continue to do so.

 

I agree with you 100%. I know exactly how scientific studies are published and what is required. My post wasn't copied from anywhere. I didn't try to make a certain statement with my post, but my opinion is that we will forever converge to what is 'fact', but never reach it.

 

We are ignorant and hypocritical if we state facts as: The Earth is round/spheroid. As this may still be the crude part of the refining procedure of its actual size.

 

Although Flat Earthers can be considered wrong, the rest can't be considered right.

[Jurgens Smit]

I don't think they believe it at all - I reckon it's just a silly excuse to hang with other silly people. A bit like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster....

 

I like those flying spaghetti monster okes, that whole thing was started to troll the education system. I think it is starting to become a lot more serious ow that it is recognized as a religion in some countries, but the core idea comes from a troll.

 

The flat earthers are motivated the same way as the guys in Kruger park are when somebody "see's" a lion, pretty soon a whole lot of them will also "see" it

[Barend de Arend]

Water in space.... not flat.

 

 

Nope, nope, nope!

 

You see, my monitor is flat.  Therefore the water in this video is flat.  Therefore water in space is flat.  QED.

[Jenna Chicky]

That's right. People f$@%ing love science, until it doesn't conform with their beliefs. Then it's a conspiracy, or science is flawed, or scientists are wrong, or or ....

Quite honestly I don't think you have any idea what science is.

You don't have any idea what religion or faith is either because all your comments are steeped in contradiction.

['Kaze Pete]

That is an extremely simplistic, and dishonest way of portraying that. It has taken no account of scale, and obviously assumes a flat earth. Water does curve. On a small scale, like in a bowl, it will appear to be completely flat, but it is not. 

I a glober myself. I just want to poke the hornets nest a bit. See some scientific process on the hub... Doubt it will happen. Thought this thread is harmless enough for the process to be demonstrated?

[popcorn_skollie]

Not really sure what to make of your post, and whether you copied this from somewhere else or what. But maybe it is a good thing to go and read up on what makes a good/decent scientific study that will stand up to peer review and scrutiny.

 

Then consider this, everything in your life revolves around science. One eg where a lot of research is involved is medicine. The drugs you take to make you feel better again went through rigorous tests (studies, based on hypothesis) before you get to swallow that pill.

If one is dismissive of science when it gets uncomfortable because it challenges one's beliefs on one side, but gladly make use of technology in this modern day on the other - then that's ignorant and hypocritical. Where we are today is as a result of years of studies and data analysis from a wide field converging into what is in front of you today. It could have been crude, and rudimentary at one stage, but science evolved and the more we understand the less it is limited by shortcomings, and thus will continue to do so.

 

I think we're all way pass that. Most of that which you have said. Really goes without saying.

I too agree with that which you have said. But JanJan did not pit facts against belief.

He merely echo's my sentiment from his own perspective. Which is refreshing to consider.

Here's some more.

At this point I should point out that I'll probably derail a bit and that despite my post being a direct reply to your's. Everything I say from this point on is a general statement directed at everyone.

 

One of the first things we need to do is to stop pigeon holing people or painting them with the same brush. Global warming denialists and anti vaxers sure sound like the same type of people. But its grossly unfair to categorically state that they are the same people. Even if I choose my words carefully and say...probably. Here's why.

 

Facts. Change. Science. Changes. And that which is considered proof today could be considered trash tomorrow. Furthermore and perhaps I should have started with this. As technologically advanced as we are today, we simply don't know everything. We aren't even close. Not by a long shot. I'm pretty sure we have barely scratched the surface of scientific discovery and that the vast majority of knowledge contained within the universe is simply untapped. I think this perspective needs to be perpetuated more often. Perhaps it will instill some humility in those who seek to polarize these debates. 

 

Do you know who is rightfully credited with the idea behind The Big Bang Theory? Not Hubble. No. A guy called Georges Lemaître. A Catholic priest. That's right. The Big Bang Theory is the brainchild of a Catholic priest. Its one of life's beautiful little ironies. A scientist named Alexander Friedmann share's the mantle somewhat and their work on the expanding universe is actually based on some of Einstein's previous work. Here's the kicker though. Einstein believed in the theory of a static universe. He even tested it by calculating its size based on his theory of relativity. Today however. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding. Its ground zero for the Big Bang Theory and how the age of the universe is calculated. Ah, yes, the age of the universe. Another fact that keeps changing. But yes. If you didn't predict the punchline by now here it is. Turns out that there was this one thing. You know about the universe. Some folk couldn't agree on. And in turns out that Einstein was wrong (just this once though!) and that a Catholic priest was right.

 

Some of us really just need to take a step back to re-establish our point of departure when discussing all of this. Because if we don't. Then we are guilty of being as narrow minded as the very people we paint with the same accusation. And that my friends is the definition of hypocrisy. 

['Kaze Pete]

Some of us really just need to take a step back to re-establish our point of departure when discussing all of this. Because if we don't. Then we are guilty of being as narrow minded as the very people we paint with the same accusation. And that my friends is the definition of hypocrisy.

Well said. The point I was hoping to show by requesting proof of a ridiculous (to me) statement.

 

Let rigorous, unbiased, peer reviews win!

[Thor Buttox]

I think we're all way pass that. Most of that which you have said. Really goes without saying.

I too agree with that which you have said. But JanJan did not pit facts against belief.

He merely echo's my sentiment from his own perspective. Which is refreshing to consider.

Here's some more.

At this point I should point out that I'll probably derail a bit and that despite my post being a direct reply to your's. Everything I say from this point on is a general statement directed at everyone.

 

One of the first things we need to do is to stop pigeon holing people or painting them with the same brush. Global warming denialists and anti vaxers sure sound like the same type of people. But its grossly unfair to categorically state that they are the same people. Even if I choose my words carefully and say...probably. Here's why.

 

Facts. Change. Science. Changes. And that which is considered proof today could be considered trash tomorrow. Furthermore and perhaps I should have started with this. As technologically advanced as we are today, we simply don't know everything. We aren't even close. Not by a long shot. I'm pretty sure we have barely scratched the surface of scientific discovery and that the vast majority of knowledge contained within the universe is simply untapped. I think this perspective needs to be perpetuated more often. Perhaps it will instill some humility in those who seek to polarize these debates.

 

Do you know who is rightfully credited with the idea behind The Big Bang Theory? Not Hubble. No. A guy called Georges Lemaître. A Catholic priest. That's right. The Big Bang Theory is the brainchild of a Catholic priest. Its one of life's beautiful little ironies. A scientist named Alexander Friedmann share's the mantle somewhat and their work on the expanding universe is actually based on some of Einstein's previous work. Here's the kicker though. Einstein believed in the theory of a static universe. He even tested it by calculating its size based on his theory of relativity. Today however. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding. Its ground zero for the Big Bang Theory and how the age of the universe is calculated. Ah, yes, the age of the universe. Another fact that keeps changing. But yes. If you didn't predict the punchline by now here it is. Turns out that there was this one thing. You know about the universe. Some folk couldn't agree on. And in turns out that Einstein was wrong (just this once though!) and that a Catholic priest was right.

 

Some of us really just need to take a step back to re-establish our point of departure when discussing all of this. Because if we don't. Then we are guilty of being as narrow minded as the very people we paint with the same accusation. And that my friends is the definition of hypocrisy.

I almost totally agree with you. I think what you are trying to say is that we live in a probalistic universe and we cannot approach certainty in all things, but as we continue to refine our approach and eliminate uncertainty we do get closer to the truth.

 

Where the human condition intervenes and where faith/antivaxers/flat earthers ARE the same is that they have to explicitly reject a much higher probability for a much lower probability.

 

If it was framed in that way and actually accepted by the faithful as being a willing choice to do so, I accepted as such with humility their religions prescribe, the world would be a much happier place.

 

That would however mean following through and having the full courage of your convictions. So if someone says 'There is no such thing as a fact' they must be prepared to accept the following:

- there is no means to judge value and/or merit

- morality becomes irrelevant

- your own existence loses significance

- there is even less reason to suspect a divine creator in a universe without meaning or purpose

 

Semantic arguments are great in theory, but beware the hidden pitfalls.

[Piston ZA]

Quite honestly I don't think you have any idea what science is.

You don't have any idea what religion or faith is either because all your comments are steeped in contradiction.

Elaborate please

[Piston ZA]

Quite honestly I don't think you have any idea what science is.

You don't have any idea what religion or faith is either because all your comments are steeped in contradiction.

Maybe you have misunderstood what I'm trying to say. Science isn't something you cherry-pick which parts you accept and which parts you reject. I see it often that people say they love science, yet they are anti-vax or anti gmo, when the overwhelming scientific consensus is that they are safe and effective. Because it goes against their beliefs, they will then say the science is wrong, or biased or that there is some sort of conspiracy. Yet these same people will say they believe in man-made climate change because the science is clear.

 

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Piston ZA]

Quite honestly I don't think you have any idea what science is.

You don't have any idea what religion or faith is either because all your comments are steeped in contradiction.

It's a long read, but this pretty much explains what I was trying to get at above in a little more detail.

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/05/23/anti-vaccers-climate-change-deniers-and-anti-gmo-activists-are-all-the-same/

 

"...science is a method. It either works or it doesn’t, and you can’t cherry-pick when you do and do not want to accept the results that it gives."

[MTBeer]

If I could give you more than one like I would. It was an absolute pleasure to read.

I've been in and out there but not too often recently. This eloquent summary hits home though.

 

Back to the topic and how it relates to what you said. Well at least to me. Science has a way of well. Changing things. Now before you start rolling your eyes let me offer some perspective.

 

A simple example. Remember when Pluto was a planet? Man I'm still rooting for Pluto being a planet. It was like one of those things you memorized as a kid. Along with other valuable forget me nots like: look left, then right and left again before crossing the road. Pizza is spelled with two "Z's" for some odd reason and that there are 9 planets which orbit the sun in our solar system, the last of which, is Pluto.

 

Nothing about Pluto itself has changed. What has changed was our definition of the word 'planet'. Pluto no longer fit that criteria and just because its a small guy far away with some weird shaped orbit. It gets tossed out of the family. My argument is simple. Pluto, however odd and diminutive it may be. Still orbits our sun. Like we do. Its one of us dammit. Then they bring up the Eris Asteroid and yeah it gets messy.

 

Thing is. That's just a definition. The starting point of any debate. If opposing sides are discussing a topic and both parties are using the same words and expressions while each having different views of what they actually mean.

Then even straight up facts can suddenly seem arbitrary. 

sorry Skollie, but I can't take you seriously if you post stuff like this ": look left, then right and left again before crossing the road".

 

In SA (or any drive on the left country) you look right then left then right. I feel sorry for your kids

 

#justsaying

[popcorn_skollie]

sorry Skollie, but I can't take you seriously if you post stuff like this ": look left, then right and left again before crossing the road".

 

In SA (or any drive on the left country) you look right then left then right. I feel sorry for your kids

 

#justsaying

 

[arabsandals]

I think we're all way pass that. Most of that which you have said. Really goes without saying.

I too agree with that which you have said. But JanJan did not pit facts against belief.

He merely echo's my sentiment from his own perspective. Which is refreshing to consider.

Here's some more.

At this point I should point out that I'll probably derail a bit and that despite my post being a direct reply to your's. Everything I say from this point on is a general statement directed at everyone.

 

One of the first things we need to do is to stop pigeon holing people or painting them with the same brush. Global warming denialists and anti vaxers sure sound like the same type of people. But its grossly unfair to categorically state that they are the same people. Even if I choose my words carefully and say...probably. Here's why.

 

Facts. Change. Science. Changes. And that which is considered proof today could be considered trash tomorrow. Furthermore and perhaps I should have started with this. As technologically advanced as we are today, we simply don't know everything. We aren't even close. Not by a long shot. I'm pretty sure we have barely scratched the surface of scientific discovery and that the vast majority of knowledge contained within the universe is simply untapped. I think this perspective needs to be perpetuated more often. Perhaps it will instill some humility in those who seek to polarize these debates. 

 

Do you know who is rightfully credited with the idea behind The Big Bang Theory? Not Hubble. No. A guy called Georges Lemaître. A Catholic priest. That's right. The Big Bang Theory is the brainchild of a Catholic priest. Its one of life's beautiful little ironies. A scientist named Alexander Friedmann share's the mantle somewhat and their work on the expanding universe is actually based on some of Einstein's previous work. Here's the kicker though. Einstein believed in the theory of a static universe. He even tested it by calculating its size based on his theory of relativity. Today however. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding. Its ground zero for the Big Bang Theory and how the age of the universe is calculated. Ah, yes, the age of the universe. Another fact that keeps changing. But yes. If you didn't predict the punchline by now here it is. Turns out that there was this one thing. You know about the universe. Some folk couldn't agree on. And in turns out that Einstein was wrong (just this once though!) and that a Catholic priest was right.

 

Some of us really just need to take a step back to re-establish our point of departure when discussing all of this. Because if we don't. Then we are guilty of being as narrow minded as the very people we paint with the same accusation. And that my friends is the definition of hypocrisy. 

Facts DON'T change. One's interpretation of facts may change, but objective truth is austerely immutable. You have badly misinterpreted the scientific method and principle of falsifiablility.

[arabsandals]

I think it's uncalled for that after months debating on another thread you feel it opportune to equate the belief in GOD to a similar belief in a flat earth?????????

 

Are you for real in claiming that because both of these require an element of faith, that faith as a whole is flawed and anything faith related is therefore a failure to recognise some higher form of intellect?

 

I feel offended that you even suggest there's a similarity. Makes months of participation in the other thread seem a total waste of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree. That other thread was a waste of time...

[popcorn_skollie]

Facts DON'T change. One's interpretation of facts may change, but objective truth is austerely immutable. You have badly misinterpreted the scientific method and principle of falsifiablility.

 

I was born on the 26th of June 1981. This won't change. It is a fact. At least I think so. Who know's how concrete my birth certificate is. This year I am 36 years old. That's a fact right?

Guess what happens next year.