The Flat Earthers Are Still With Us

narcberry writes "The BBC reports on a scientific community still holding to flat earth theories. From their article: 'Are there any genuine flat-earthers left? Surely in our era of space exploration — where satellites take photos of our blue and clearly globular planet from space, and robots send back info about soil and water from Mars — no one can seriously still believe that the Earth is flat? Wrong. Flat earth theory is still around. On the internet and in small meeting rooms in Britain and the US, flat earth believers get together to challenge the 'conspiracy' that the Earth is round.'"

Comments

Scientific community?

[Aardpig]

Well, that's obviously not the right thing to call them...

Re:Scientific community?

[Rosy At Random]

Somehow I'm thinking the intersection of flat-earthers and creationists contains a lot of the flat-earthers.

Re:Scientific community?

[Kneo24]

I completely agree. There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch. They can use whatever "scientific" (pseudo-science in this case) means they'd like, but that doesn't necessarily make it scientific. It is a proven fact that the Earth is round. So are other planets.

I wish people would stop calling cretins who pretend to use science as scientists. It soils the good name of science!

Re:Scientific community?

[Kneo24]

I know, replying to myself here, but I did do what's forbidden around here. I read the fucking article. These guys are god damn crack pots. The Earth is infinitely horizontal? Have they ever held a ball in their entire life? Do they have any sort of concept of perception?

What's even more irritating is that yes, they also believe the earth is circular, which sort of contradicts their infinitely horizontal theory. Someone important tell this dick-weeds to fuck off and stop breathing my precious air. I hereby decree that they are too stupid to function in a normal society.

Re:Scientific community?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Proven fact" is a very bad phrase. Proven to whom? You can say there are evidence, or better yet, that there are simple and clear ways to corroborate that the Earth is round, and that if anyone has any doubts they can perform these experiments for themselves.

Nothing is proven. You can only present your case, and allow the jury to judge for themselves.

Re:Scientific community?

[pxlmusic]

what's more fcuked up is that these idiots are breeding.

Re:Scientific community?

[Yvanhoe]

Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces. What flat-earthers are doing is quite admirable in fact : they take the challenge of defending a view that is contradicted by almost every fact of normal life and try to create a coherent if convulated theory about it.

Re:Scientific community?

[nasor]

I actually went to their web page, and it seemed pretty clear that it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. Although I'm sure they're all having a BIG laugh at how worked up everyone is getting over the whole thing.

Re:Scientific community?

[budgenator]

There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch.

Are you sure, have you seriously looked at their arguments and considered them on their merits rather than you emotional beliefs? I'll bet if you sit down with a dedicated Flat Earther and had a debate, he or she would smoke you. i seriously doubt that the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat, but they do like taking the contrarian position and arguing it for the sport value.

Re:Scientific community?

[StormReaver]

"Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces."

When the crackpots (such as the creationists) invade your school systems, you'll lose your sense of humor, too.

Re:Scientific community?

[Gonoff]

It sounds to me like uou are unable to believe that there is nobody that dense.
Bob Heinlein wrote "Never understimate the power of human stupidity.

If people are so pusposely ignorant as to ignore the evidence about one thing, they will find it easy to ignore other truths as well.

I find it very believable that a small but vocal bunch of amazingly stupid people think the earth is flat. If they do, they will certainly have other foolish opinions as well.

Re:Scientific community?

[Goaway]

It sure makes it easier to feel good about oneself if one just believes everybody else is very stupid.

Re:Scientific community?

[ale_ryu]

We should do to them exactly what they did to our guys 500 years ago, burn them, hang them, etc., at least we have proof we're right :P

Now, seriously speaking, it's obvious these guys are trolling, and they've put a lot of effort in it. Considering most of the slashdot community actually got angry at them I'd say they have succeded. Yep, these guys are successful trolls :P

Re:Scientific community?

[BewireNomali]

creationism is an opiate. it makes people who need it feel better about their existence. i can imagine that the guy who spins wonderous tales of magical beings can get laid - depending on his charisma, etc. it got jk rowling billions of dollars. *shrugs*

and yes i did compare the bible to harry potter.

flat-earthers? these guys do not get laid.

Re:Scientific community?

[freddy_dreddy]

I've only read a few threads and what they do is what every scientist pro or contra does: attack it from every possible angle. The topic they've chosen is as innocent as can be, and from the bits and pieces I've read they put up a very nice show which is amuzing to read

Questioning Science is not anti-scientific. Taking ruling theories as absolute truth is unscientific.

Stuff like this should be demonstrated in schools to show kids how science works and learn them how to build and defend your case.

Re:Scientific community?

[dgatwood]

That theory is comedically easy to disprove. The distance from San Jose, CA to DFW airport is 1,685 miles. At five hours or so for the flight, that comes to on the order of 300 MPH. A bus traveling that speed on land would not make it. The tires would blow out after a few thousand feet at such a speed. Even if you could get around this problem with a new tire design, you'd still have the problem of hitting people and vehicles on the way. And, of course, if there were some elaborate theatrical production outside a plane traveling at such a rate, the people would fly away themselves. Oh, and I would add that with the number of people in and around these two airports, surely someone would have seen these 300 MPH busses if such a story were true.

Re:Scientific community?

[Zebra_X]

It did seem that way, but Tom Bishop spends an awful lot of time defending the theory, one might mistake the amount of time he's invested (average 9 posts per day, ~ 9,000 posts total) as something more than "humor" lol

Poor sod

Re:Scientific community?

[AmishElvis]

I strongly suspect that these guys are the ultimate trolls. I think "Flat Earth" is a giant exercise in keeping a straight face.

Re:Scientific community?

[D'Sphitz]

The difference is I can understand why creationists think what they do. They have some "evidence" in the bible, they've been brainwashed since infancy, and it's a nice emotional crutch to not have to come to terms with their own mortality.

I'm at a loss to come up with any rationalization for believing the earth is flat, though.

Re:Scientific community?

[rk]

We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.

The moment you break out a word like "proof", you are already on the express bus out of Scienceville. Science is about coming up with theories that match observations, and can make predictions about future observations. The reason why scientists generally regard the Big Bang Theory as a good theory is because it fit observations made at the time and is confirmed by more observations made since that the theory predicted. When observations are made that don't fit the theory, the theory gets elaborated on (in the case of relativity refining Newton's classical mechanics) or outright rejected (luminiferous ether, phlogistons). A theory can be disproven, but can never really be proven.

Any reasonably honest scientist will cheerfully acknowledge that the current understanding of cosmology, evolution, or any other science doesn't represent the whole truth, or even a truth, but are models to explain what we see in nature. If science had all the answers, we'd have no need for further science research!

Re:Scientific community?

[nasor]

It's funny, because I would expect slashdot readers to be much less susceptible to trollish "I'll see if I can actually trick anyone into thinking that I'm being serious with this obviously fake, incredibly stupid post" sort of thing. But apparently not.

That being said, it's a great subject for trooling. And good troll will tell you that you need to make a post that is:
1. Obviously wrong
2. About a subject that's complicated enough that it would take someone significant time/effort to properly explain why the original post is wrong
3. Stupid enough that you can get a laugh at the expense of all the people who took your post seriously and put in significant time/effort to respond

Re:Scientific community?

[BeanThere]

Yeah ... reminds me of some Richard Mitchell:

"Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen."

Re:Scientific community?

[Keen Anthony]

You can disprove creationism, and you can do it rather easily. Creationism doesn't stop with "God created man". That's the domain of the mouth-breathing religious zealot who knows nothing about the scary world around him, including the history of the Bible. Real Creationism "theory" has become far more developed as Creationists try to respond to challenges.

There are quantitative observations the deeper you go into the theory. Calculations of such things as the age of the earth based on the summation of ages of the apostles are used as prima facie evidence that God created man, and yet carbon dating in this example easily shows the calculations are wrong.

WOOOSH!! @ Americans

[EEPROMS]

Im Australian so I can understand the subtle nature sarcastic english humour. Sorry I have to rush off I have a committee meeting on a new funny walk that needs approval...

So what?

[the eric conspiracy]

Flat earthers etc. are fine with me so long as they don't all join the school board and force the teaching of their ideas in public schools.

Re:So what?

[Tack]

The implicit comparison is apt. Denying a round earth is quite close in ignorance to denying evolution.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not atheists, you dolt. Scientists. There are more than enough religious scientists who do not believe in "Creationism", thanks.

Neither side has proof but both sides have evidence.

Creationists do not have any evidence. They have a book.

I still have my BIG doubts...

[Spy der Mann]

How do we know it's not a club of pranksters who want to fool the world into believing flat-earthers still exist?

Just as amazing

[winterice]

Not only that, but just as amazing, Young Earth creationists are still with us as well.

Re:Just as amazing

[krazytekn0]

I was going to mod you up, but decided a reply will be more in order... TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE WORDS "Young Earth" This is the illogical creation theory, there are in fact people who believe that God created the Big Bang, or that he created living things through the process of evolution those who believe this are not nearly the "crackpots" that the normal slashdotter believes that ALL creationists are, this thinking on the part of many intellectual elitists is equally fallacious as Young Earth creationism.

Also note, there are a TON of other theories and I don't claim to represent any of them well. I just think people need to be a little introspective when they say things assuming that ALL creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old.

It's a matter of trust.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people never travel farther than a few hundred miles from their place of birth. I've never seen Australia, so I don't know if it's on the other side of a round earth. For all I know it might not even exist at all. We're all like Truman. We believe what we're told because if we tried to verify everything, then we couldn't get on with our lives. Some people notice that "science" is often used as a "proof by intimidation" and consequently lose their trust in scientific results. So the earth is flat, because that's what I see, and none of you "scientists" can fool me with your "theories".

Re:Why did this get Slashdotted?

[WK2]

There is proof that the world is not flat. There will never be proof that God does not exist.

Re:Why did this get Slashdotted?

[thejeffer]

There will also never be proof that the Easter Bunny does not exist.

Re:belief without experience is more stupider

[JasonNolan]

just because your model is better (and I agree it is) doesn't for a moment mitigate the fact that the model and theory is being replaced for an actual experience of the thing itself. Of course western science has the best results when you want to build a bridge. But you don't believe in science based on the model without ever seeing the bridge in action. Same with the world. And to say that science isn't about truth is ludicrous. It is a hegemonic belief structure just like any other. Just one that is really useful right now in terms of the sort of things we like doing. But I think you're on the money when you boil it down to the important bit. It doesn't matter what is true or right, but rather what is most useful at the moment... the predictive value; a concept that most people inside science seem to think that everyone understands... which is a strange thought. :)

Re:belief without experience is more stupider

[TapeCutter]

"That's as stupid as creationist and their logic. I don't care if 'science' says so, or God. My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise.....I personally have no way of verifying that information"

Science always gives you the option of reproducing results, if it deosn't then it can't be called science. If you are too lazy or stupid to repoduce the results for yourself but still insist they are wrong then you will quite rightly be labeled as an arrogant crackpot.

In the case of the flat earth, it's blindingly obviously you are not paying attention to your surroundings. For example how do you explain ships dissapearing over the horizon? If they fall of the edge then how do they get back?

"to suddenly go off into believing 'ex officio' everything science says is silly"

Please attempt to learn what science is before offering your critique.