YouTube To Blame For Rise in Flat Earth Believers, Says Study (cnet.com)

According to research, almost everyone who believes in flat Earth theory got started on YouTube. From a report: Asheley Landrum is an assistant professor of science communication at Texas Tech University. Her focus: how cultural values affect our understanding of science. Most recently she's been looking at the rise of flat Earth theory. Incredibly, more people than ever believe in a flat Earth. Google searches for "flat earth" have grown massively over the past five years and flat Earth conventions have begun popping up all over the globe. That's where Landrum focused her research. Landrum interviewed 30 people who attended one flat Earth convention and found that all but one became flat Earthers after watching videos on YouTube.

She presented her research at an event run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. While Landrum didn't explicitly blame YouTube for the rise in flat Earth believers, she does believe that Google could be doing more to stop the spread of scientifically incorrect ideas. "There's a lot of helpful information on YouTube but also a lot of misinformation," she said, as reported by The Guardian. "Their algorithms make it easy to end up going down the rabbit hole, by presenting information to people who are going to be more susceptible to it."

Comments

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Joce640k]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

If the number of "believers" is going up then it might be that the number of critical thinkers is going up.

On the other hand it could also be that I don't hang round with the other end of the spectrum and it really is the number of idiots that's going online to confirm their beliefs that's going up.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Sique]

I caution against the "I doubt it" as a way to profile oneself as critical thinker.

Doubt is just a version of belief, albeit a belief in the negative. As Henri Poincaré eloquently pointed out: believing everything and doubting everything are equally convenient ways to avoid the work of actual thinking.

A critical thinker has to be able to do both: list the pro- and the counter-arguments and weigh them against each other. A critical thinker has to be able to argue both sides, and to really understand the consequences of each hypothesis. And he has to be able to think of alternate third hypotheses to not fall into the false dilemma trap (e.g. there is not only Darwinism and Biblical Creationism, there is also the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Critical thinking is the ability to question one's own beliefs.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. The conspiracy nut I know claims he is a free thinker and everyone else is held back by what they were taught in school. In reality he just dismisses anything mainstream and believes whatever 'feels right'.

It's a common cry from conspiracy believers that they are the skeptics and everyone else is just blindly following.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

How do you know?

There is very little difference between an idiot and someone who pretends to be an idiot.
To the extent where there is absolutely no reason for anyone to make the distinction and treat them differently.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, believing in flat earth or other kinds of extreme nonsense has nothing to do with "critical thinking"!

Critical thinking is the cradle of science and technology the road out from the dark ages, feudalism and authoritarianism, do not credit these cretins with any such description. What they are doing is the exact opposite, they are placing themselves or someone else who they trust as a higher authority to blindly believe in rather than trusting in science. Their choice is to avoid thinking, particularly critically, at all, not thinking critically!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Registered Coward v2]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

If the number of "believers" is going up then it might be that the number of critical thinkers is going up.

On the other hand it could also be that I don't hang round with the other end of the spectrum and it really is the number of idiots that's going online to confirm their beliefs that's going up.

Of course flat earthers are wrong. Flat is a two dimensional concept and we clearly do not live in Flatland. Flat Earthers need to change their name to Square Earthers.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Z80a]

Defending flat earth is a hell of an discussion and debate exercise.
It's probably one of the hardest non-evil things to actually defend.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Kokuyo]

I agree. A critical thinker will often change his mind, sometimes his whole outlook on life without falling into a deep crisis, or resisting the change out of a subconscious fear of that change.

That is a pretty rare kind of human being I've unfortunately come to realise. To equate this to not believing everything you're told cheapens the value of the character trait.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[AmiMoJo]

Does it matter what they really believe in their heart-of-hearts?

Someone might not believe that there are literal angels or that when they die they are literally tortured for eternity, but that doesn't really matter if the result is the same, e.g. they support religion based policies and morality stemming for those ideas.

Believing in a flat earth may seem somewhat benign, but if it results in more impressionable people being mislead (e.g. children) or people using it to enrich themselves by organizing profitable conferences, then it's not just a joke any more.

As Sique pointed out above, it's not a gateway to critical thinking either, it's a gateway to post-truth distrust of everything except what you can personally observe with your limited faculties.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Joce640k]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

How do you know?

Because they're not idiots. They're just trying to find out how many other people know how to prove that the earth isn't flat.

For contrast I also know somebody who genuinely doesn't believe The Earth is round (she's an old lady with not much education so I don't devote much energy to changing her mind).

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Joce640k]

Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, believing in flat earth or other kinds of extreme nonsense has nothing to do with "critical thinking"!

No, but pretending to believe in it does.

Maybe you also believe that all those Satanist/nihilist metal bands also believe in Satan/suicide?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all, you just need to declare all evidence contrary to your beliefs as being "fake".

You cherry pick any conclusions that can be used to prove your claims while dismissing any conclusions that are contrary to your views and voila.

It may be hard to defend if you are debating honestly, but it's not that hard if you rely on deceptions and lies. As far as I know, most flat earthers fall into the latter category.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[JustNiz]

> it might be that the number of critical thinkers is going up.

Nope, trolls are just attention-whores that aren't smart enough to come up with anything that contributes to the discussion, so they try and subvert it into their own dumbed-down one.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Jahta]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

Well Flat Earth Conventions and even cruises are a thing, so it's not just trolling. And the folks who attend these things genuinely seem to believe they are doing actual science, while proper peer-reviewed science is considered to be part of some grand conspiracy.

The problem with Youtube, in my experience, is with the recommendation system. I regularly get fringe political, pseudo-science, and conspiracy theory videos showing up as "Recommended for you"; even though they are in no way relevant what I'm watching or searching for.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[religionofpeas]

Not at all, you just need to declare all evidence contrary to your beliefs as being "fake".

You have be very creative to explain a sunset as "fake" when you can witness it yourself.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flat Earthers, climate change deniers, anti vaxx, creationists, Moon landing deniers, all dumbfucks to be pitied and ignored. Dr They at work.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Belief is not directly related to intelligence. When one believes, it depends on how the one thinks (not the knowledge). If the one is intelligent, the one can always come up with any reason to defend the one's belief (using one's knowledge, not fact, from different point of view). At the same time, the one may discard/disregard any evidences or facts by discrediting them. If the one is stupid, the one can't defend anything but rather blindly believes.

Do you want an example? Then look at religious or politic. Both are the same way. Those who are extremists will believe in what they want to believe. Even certain things are obviously lie or non-sense, they still believe and disregard facts. Those who are intelligent can even argue why their believe is true (not fact) by either reasoning around the fact or attempting to merge the fact into their belief. Sad but true.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Rockoon]

Flat is a two dimensional concept and we clearly do not live in Flatland.

Tell that to the believers in the holographic principle, aka leading cosmologists.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[cs96and]

Yes, it matters.

I recommend watching the documentary "Behind The Curve" on Netflix. I watch it last night and it was a real eye-opener.

In the last few years, Flat Earthers have gone from being a joke to something that a lot of people take very, very seriously. These people go hand-in-hand with anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists as part of a new wave of "Anti-Intellectualism".

Flat Earthers want Flat Earth theory to be taught in schools. That statement alone should be enough to make you realize that this has now gone beyond a joke and is something that should be vehimintly denied. The problem is that Flat Earthers are impossible to reason with. They keep saying "there is no scientific proof for a round earth", but if you try to present any sort of proof they completely dismiss it. Some of them even tried to do their own experiments to prove the earth was flat and (surprise, surprise) the experiments instead showed that the earth was round. This then just leads them to believe that their experiment is flawed in someway. They are completely unwilling to take on board any facts that disprove the flat earth theory.

The funny thing is, Mark Sargent (the "King" of the Flat Earthers) says that you should "question everything". Yet these people are completely unwilling to question their own theory.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that a good tool does not create a good craftsman, rather the knowledge and skills of the craftsman use the tool to create. Many great tools are wasted on wanna-be craftsman.

YouTube is a tool. It is up to the user to learn and apply their experiences and reach a conclusion. YouTube is not causing an increased number of flat earthers, our bad educational system is creating an audience too uneducated to filter out the bogus info.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you can explain this photograph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Know_Return#/media/File:Kansas_-_Point_of_Know_Return.jpg

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't use the word creative, but more likely dishonest. If you are citing the sunset, a flat earther will say it's due to perspective, refraction or anything that fits their belief system - even if it's plain wrong.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[DontBeAMoran]

And he has to be able to think of alternate third hypotheses to not fall into the false dilemma trap (e.g. there is not only Darwinism and Biblical Creationism, there is also the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Well, we all know that this third hypothesis is just complete nonsense. The only valid third hypothesis is, of course, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[DontBeAMoran]

I can easily explain this photograph:
- the file format is JPEG, in 24-bit colours, which is the appropriate format considering the image
- the DPI is set at 72 pixels per inch
- its dimensions are 300 × 294 pixels
- the file size is 27628 bytes

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[DontBeAMoran]

I recommend watching the documentary "Behind The Curve" on Netflix.

I was wondering if it was any good. Thank you.

In the last few years, Flat Earthers have gone from being a joke to something that a lot of people take very, very seriously. These people go hand-in-hand with anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists as part of a new wave of "Anti-Intellectualism".

Aren't all of these groups mostly a USA-only thing? Is it coming from a lack of education, or something else?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[DontBeAMoran]

What would be funny is "around the world" cruises for flat-earthers.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, there's people that are gullible enough to think that there are people that think the earth is flat? Being a "flat earther" is obviously a joke, and trolling. Wow, I can't believe someone is that gullible to take them seriously!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a while, it was very, very bad. I could not watch any technology/maker/science videos without being recommended a deluge of 'zero-point energy magnet motor' type nonsense. It seems to have improved, somewhat.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well Flat Earth Conventions [arstechnica.com] and even cruises [theguardian.com] are a thing, so it's not just trolling.

What, trolls can't take cruises? Or go to conventions with other trolls?

If not, why not?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[ShanghaiBill]

Flat Earthers need to change their name to Square Earthers.

Flat Earthers do not believe the earth is square. They believe it is a circular disk.

It is obviously not square, since the earth casts a circular shadow during a lunar eclipse.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[GLMDesigns]

I find climate change to be a different category than the others.

One it has to do with falsifiable predictions for the future (which currently they are not - or have been proved wildly inaccurate.)

Second it has a lot to do with bad science reporting - but still the scientists are not rebuking the nonsense. Example that CO2 is a leading indicator for rise in temperatures.

Third, it has to with solutions for the problem. Not one of them brings acknowledges that renewable energy production has been growing in an exponential rate since the 1970s. If we continue at this rate for another 20 years we will be close to fossil fuel independent and another 40 years we will be out of the petro era completely. (With of course some exceptions.)

One quick example:

World-wide consumption of wind power was

0.0105 TWh in 1980
3.6 TWh in 1990
31.5 TWh in 2000
341.4 TWh in 2010
959.5 TWh in 2016

Let's extrapolate a 10x increase per decade

That places us at 3,000 TWh in 2020, 30,000 in 2030 and 300,000 in 2040.

Let's look at solar PV TWh
0 TWh 1980
0.3 TWh 1990
1.15 TWh 2000
33.8 TWh 2010
333 TWh 2016

"According to the Renewables Global Status Report (GSR) from REN21, roughly a fifth of the world’s electrical power production now comes from renewable sources. To be more precise, in 2013 renewable energy accounted for 22% of the global energy mix, up from 21% in 2012 and 18% in 2007."

Therefore by 2040 we will be able to source all our current use of electricity by renewables plus a lot more.

This will true with or without any Green New Deal. This will be true with or without governments changing what they're doing.

Funny how I don't hear this from all the doomsayers.

The fact that doomsayers don't mention the fact that the carbon footprint problem will be solved in 20 years makes me suspect.
There are many things that makes me suspect of the climate-change alarmists. (One of them is the slight of hand of using the phrase "climate change.")

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[religionofpeas]

It is obviously not square, since the earth casts a circular shadow during a lunar eclipse.

Nothing obvious about it. The mental gymnastics required to explain every day phenomena like sunsets and time zones can also explain a circular shadow from a square object.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[religionofpeas]

Therefore by 2040 we will be able to source all our current use of electricity by renewables plus a lot more.

Electricity generation only accounts for about a quarter of total energy use, and it's the easiest to replace by renewables.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly, but also from the UK (strangely).

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Of course flat earthers are wrong. Flat is a two dimensional concept and we clearly do not live in Flatland. Flat Earthers need to change their name to Square Earthers.

I KNEW IT! That TimeCube guy was right!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[GLMDesigns]

That's true.

But I was understating my case. Projecting the same growth rate to 2040 would be a 1000x increase over current production. That would take care of all electric generation plus allow for electric cars to supplant petrol based cars.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[DontBeAMoran]

And for those who don't believe me, here's a photo of her.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flat Earthers, climate change deniers, anti vaxx, creationists, Moon landing deniers, all dumbfucks to be pitied and ignored. Dr They at work.

All of those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another, which is not unreasonable.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Invisible Pink Unicorn.

So is the excuse of a rapist.

"No, I didn't rape you. You got raped by the invisible pink unicorn (IPU).

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubling down on your anecdotes eh? Maybe if you triple-dog-down you'll get a little redemption.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[pr0fessor]

I have a brother that will gladly troll you on flat earth, global warming, etc... just bring up a subject and he will disagree with you no matter which side you take. I think he get's a kick out of it.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[thegarbz]

Because they're not idiots. They're just trying to find out how many other people know how to prove that the earth isn't flat.

Again, how do you know? I mean I like to think my fellow man is a brainiac, but the reality and statistics will often point to a considerable portion of them being true idiots.

The difference is with flat earthers identifying the trolling isn't as scientifically subjective as say for example the current increasing trend of malaria is indicative of anti-vaxxers.

The world is sadly quite full of very smart idiots, and the most perfect smart troll is a person completely indistinguishable from the dumbest idiot.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or... it could be coming from a group of people who have historically lied to and manipulated by the most advanced marketing system on the planet. They have discovered that the marketing apparatus used "scientists" and "experts" to sell all sorts of poorly supported arguments. I'm not talking about under development science, but just poorly executed science that should not have been foisted on people in the first place.

So, the crazy people have found a following in the disillusioned created by the excesses of marketing... Who could've seen that coming? Other than anyone who slowed down enough to wonder WHY people should be allowed to manipulate and lie on behalf of product.

Oh well... enjoy the ride it's only going to get worse from here.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Johny Drama]

This kind of thinking is evil because it distorts the person's entire perception on reality. This is really different than thinking for 30 seconds that we might be in a "simulation" and then laughing about it. These people really fucking think the earth is flat. I have yet to see a "troll" go more then one sentence defending this bullshit.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[religionofpeas]

Right, but you also need to account for time required to upgrade grid and replace all existing transportation. Also keep in mind that wind/solar installations start with the best locations, and that subsequent expansions have to move to poorer places, limiting their growth rate.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[ilsaloving]

The big problem with the whole climate change thing is that it is hard. It's hard to analyze and even harder to predict the ultimate outcome, because there are just so many factors that all interact with each other. It's all imperfect so you can't guarantee the exact outcome.

But the one thing that isn't in question is the fact that there is an unusual and significant change occurring.

It's comparable to "the world is a sphere" and "well ackshully it's more like an egg". Just because the world isn't exactly a sphere as originally thought, doesn't discount the idea completely and that everyone should suddenly jump onto the "the world is flat" bandwagon.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you were being facetious and I agree about false dichotomies, but alternative arguements should at least be reasonable.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

All of those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another, which is not unreasonable.

There is no important difference between guessing the authorities are telling the truth and guessing the authorities are lying, if you are too mentally lazy to consider the topic in a non-superficial way. That is not "critical thinking".

Critical thinking means coming up with a coherent set of thoughts, supported by some amount of evidence, that is more likely to reveal the truth than pure guessing.

If you believe the people around you are sheep who are not thinking, dyeing your wool to be a more garish colored sheep who is also not thinking is not an improvement. In fact, it is sincere endorsement of sheep-thinking.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all believe they are being lied to. Rather they believe that there is a authoritative minority forming conclusions on false presuppositions, and a majority who believe those conclusions from an appeal to authority.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[gnick]

If you need God to act morally, you're not acting morally. You're just acting out of fear or hope for reward. I have a lot more respect for the person who acts kindly out of love for his fellow man than I do the person who acts kindly because they think God is going to reward them for it.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[AmiMoJo]

What is this invisible skyhook you refer to?

Morality is a pretty broad, deep topic. I don't really anchor mine to anything, as I'm a humanist. A lot of moral questions are existential in nature.

I'm not sure what you example of sexual morality is supposed to demonstrate... The key, IMHO, is always consent. Male gaze is something entirely different though, it's about film-making and to some extent literature and art in general.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just trying to find out how many other people know how to prove that the earth isn't flat.

LOL. Dude, do you hear yourself?
Even taking that at face-value, that's one sad hobby.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean the moon is a flat disc? So, if (in the mind of a Flat Earther) it is not then reasonably speaking then neither is the earth!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[UnknowingFool]

Based on the flat earthers I’ve met, they are not all trolls. While they have different reasons for their beliefs, I am only concerned when they try to influence others into actions that affect everyone. For example if they want to be on the school board so they can choose textbooks that “expose the truth about the flat earth”.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[UnknowingFool]

Critical thinking is also acknowledging evidence for or against a proposition. “I believe” is often merely an easy way to deny reality.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is actually a social club, with the beds of the cruise line flattened over the use of more socially successful flat earthers. Political party conventions create legends of leaders who lay 50 partners during the event. Flat Earthers surely want to taste that cake as well.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[UnknowingFool]

Please. We all know George Soros and Elvis is paying off cruise companies not to take you to the ice wall that keeps us under The Firmament.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but pretending to believe in it does.

Maybe you also believe that all those Satanist/nihilist metal bands also believe in Satan/suicide?

Most of them are just entertainers. Some believe. Satanism is the same as christianity - a belief in exactly the same figures. The satanists merely place their trust in a different character.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Livius]

How many people genuinely believe God is a human-like decision maker, rather than merely a metaphor for their innate moral system?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[ripvlan]

I think it's a bad thing. This is a form of radicalization.

The marketing ad-gorithm it designed to keep you engaged. It will show you anything and keep you interested. You like flat-earth topics - let's make it your world and absorb you. Think the government is out to get you? "They" blow up buildings? Religious sect X out to get you? Religious sect X is evil? Free energy?

The system is designed to suck you in. And hey - if you end up being a terrorist they got their ad dollars. In this case radicalization is ridiculed instead - nobody is taking it seriously because it seems like harmless silliness that you'll outgrow. But I think it's a leading indicator of something unknown. Fake news, political ads, persuading you using alternate facts. In the long run I think it could harm the very businesses that allow it today. Someday people won't believe anything and will stop interacting with "the google."

This is "the man." You are the product.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[reanjr]

If I didn't want to act morally, then society would deal with that through systems of crime and punishment with consideration given to their values for liberty.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[lactose99]

A lot?

How many of these people have you met? I don't think I've ever encountered someone who believes in the flat earth theory, even if they are trolling.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[apoc.famine]

The big problem with the whole climate change thing is that it is hard. It's hard to analyze and even harder to predict the ultimate outcome, because there are just so many factors that all interact with each other. It's all imperfect so you can't guarantee the exact outcome.

This statement shows a really significant lack of understanding about climate science, and science in general.

Yes, it's hard. But it's also science. Science doesn't "guarantee the exact outcome". That's a typical layperson's misunderstanding of science, because science is hard and complicated, our education system is fairly crap in explaining how it works, and the media wants soundbites, eyes, and clicks rather than to convey understanding.

Science, unlike pseudo-science, gives a value and an uncertainty, and can explain how both are calculated. Climate science is no different. A whole lot of the media nonsense about "climate scientists say they were wrong about X" is often them reducing the size of the uncertainty. If I say, "There are 50 cows in that field, give or take 10", you know there are between 40 and 60. If later I count better and say, "There are 47 cows in that field, give or take 3", we now know that there are between 44 and 50. Note that 44 to 50 is a subset of 40 to 60, and has higher accuracy and less uncertainty. This is a good thing.

Unfortunately, most people view this increase in certainty as a bad thing, because it makes the original prediction "wrong". In large part this is because the media doesn't talk about the uncertainty, only the value. And often just a spitball average value, or an extreme value. "Dude claimed there were 60 cows in field, turns out there only were 44!", "Dude off by almost 30% on Cow Claims!!" would be the media headlines of the previous example.

It's baffling to me that "we know more about this than we did yesterday" is treated as if all knowledge should be suspect. In popular culture, apparently if you can't be omniscient, there is no reason to ever trust a single word you say. What's missing is the admission that science is the best tool we have for understanding the world. It's an imperfect tool, but we don't have an alternate tool. And given that, it's really important to understand what that tool tells you, and how it works. Without that, you can't really have faith in it.

And the earth is an oblate spheroid. I thought everyone learned that in school.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Jahta]

What would be funny is "around the world" cruises for flat-earthers.

Well the marine navigation systems used by cruise (and other) ships unsurprisingly work on the basis that the earth is round. Makes cruising an ironic choice for a flat-earther get together.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, people who deny the link between race and intelligence also fall in the same boat

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[dryeo]

For contrast I also know somebody who genuinely doesn't believe The Earth is round (she's an old lady with not much education so I don't devote much energy to changing her mind).

Well the fact does seem to be that the Earth is not round. It's an oblate sphere, so she's actually more right then most.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[gnick]

Many.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Harinezumi]

"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the believers in God, actually.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are predominantly a right wing thing though, and as other countries become more right wing authoritarian, you will see a rise in anti-intellectual beliefs. Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, and creationists are about 99.999% right wingers. The fact they are so incredibly gullible is how right wingers manage to get elected anywhere on Earth in the first place.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[religionofpeas]

And anybody claiming to be a "critical thinker" should first be critical of their own assumptions.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is, in general, a mass propaganda effort underway to discredit all forms of belief - not simply religion.

The reality is to the human eye, the world does appear flat. No matter how high you go - even on an aeroplane - it seems flat. Sure, sure, the space program - but seriously - many believe that's bullshit and probably a lot of it is. Where the fuck are the stars in the moon landing video? I've been in the middle of Africa hundreds of miles from civilization and you would not believe how bright and numerous the stars are on earth, beneath miles of atmosphere.

Most likely, this world is what most religions claim - a simulation of sorts. The world appears flat, but is "round" for the simple reason it would be a tedious simulation otherwise.

And then we have obvious signs of simulation - the quantum mechanics dorks. Duh. Human observation alters reality because when no one is observing it, *it isn't there!*. Why would it need to be? It would only complicate the simulation.

Sucks for nonbelievers. This world is a test. The simulation is here to prove your worth. Pass, and eternity awaits. Fail, and you simply cease to exist.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Woeful Countenance]

You know, the "I don't need God to be moral!" guys.

Oh, where does your morality come from?

If people believe that morality comes from God, how do they know whether an action is moral or not? Does God tell them directly? How do they even know which version of God is the right one? Why do people disagree about what God wants?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

This biggest problem with the whole climate change thing is how politicized it has become. When you politicize something, you end up splitting people in half. The other issue is that so many of the "solutions" are more about changing our economic system than about solving what they say the problem actually is. When many of the people calling for green legislation are wrapping their policy around socialist ideas, you're going to get a whole lot of resistance. Add to that the loud alarmists, and you have fertile ground for people to "deny"

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

What's so bad about wanting a reward? Do you work for free?

Jesus promised rewards to his followers. He did this a lot.

You're just as important as anyone else, and you are the only one you have any control over.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to describe climate science as science any more. In science, you encourage opposition and contrary theories. You test different ideas. In climate science, if you don't believe in the collective point of view, you can't even become a client scientist. It's become more like a religion than a science. Each new study is done to confirm existing ideas. They're not looking for other possible outcomes or causes. They're only looking for ways to confirm their pre-existing ideas.

A scant few would deny that humans impact the environment. We're part of nature and every part of nature impacts nature. The debate is more about to what extent do humans impact the environment. And beyond that, what are the actual consequences. Even if we're causing warming, there's further debate on whether or not all the effects are doomsday, or if it might improve things (yes, migration might result, but that might not be a net positive). There should be healthy debate on the economic and quality of life cost of implementing every single green policy. That's the problem with the "science". If you don't agree with everything the global warming cabal calls for, you're a heretic. That's not science. That's a cult.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Woeful Countenance]

I doubt the world has the manufacturing capacity to maintain that trend. What's the source for the historical data? This source projects an increase from 113 GW to 404 GW between 2020 and 2050 (US only). That's a factor of 4 in 30 years; a factor of 10 per decade would yield an increase of a thousand-fold in 30 years.

This source says "U.S. wind power has more than tripled over the past decade". That's a factor of 3, not 10, and it's from the American Wind Energy Association.

The World Wind Energy Association says, "The overall capacity of all wind turbines installed worldwide by the end of 2017 reached 539’291 Megawatt" (539 TW, not 959).

I'd be very pleased to see the world move away from fossil fuels as quickly as feasible. I'd be even more pleased if the result were greater decentralization (such as replacing large power plants with distributed solar panels). I just don't think it's going to be quick or easy. And it isn't just that fossil-fuel businesses are Evil; it's more than people in general don't like change, especially when the change seems to make things worse, and especially when it's forced on them.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[richpoore]

In Biblical Christianity, our motivation to do good should not be about fear of punishment or hope of reward. After accepting the gift of the payment of our sin debt, God asks us to love others as He loved us. The motivation is love and gratitude. It's doing for others what's already been done for us, or as much as we can do toward that.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Kyr Arvin]

And anybody claiming to be a "critical thinker" should first be critical of their own assumptions.

Being self-critical, wondering about the assumptions 'your side' makes, wondering if the arguments made make any sense is considered a "weakness" these days. It shows you're not strong and confident enough. People naturally follow confident, decisive people, even if they're flat-out wrong.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep them away from the navigators.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Overly romanticizing "sincerity" is very comforting to the sheep.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming partially from lack of education. It's also coming from a very heartfelt trend towards a sincere and honest belief that all "opinions" are valid, and a sincere inability to distinguish opinion from fact. Now you could say that's a direct result of the lack of education previously mentioned, but having lived through the beginnings of the backlash against intellectualism that is happening here in the States I actually believe it's an intentional result brought about by those who establish curriculum in public schools and in some cases private schools. Ignorant are easier to control, or so it's believed. The problem is we've begun to reach the level of ignorance that begets belligerence, and that's where the easy to lead become the angry mob.

It's unfortunate that we're headed this direction. I once thought people would get tired of being pandered to. Now I believe there's a real chance the true upheaval will come from those so ignorant they're angry that fact based science is still being taught to their children against their will. Too much ignorance, and not near enough intellectual curiosity to go around.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the fact does seem to be that the Earth is not round. It's an oblate sphere, so she's actually more right then most.

Sigh. Both statements are appropriations. One is just more simple than the other. Round has one coefficient. Oblate spheroid has two. Of course the Earth isn't an oblate sphere. The actual geoid has been measured to order 2160, which is over 4 million coefficients. So you've made one baby step past round, but you are a long way from the truth.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[William Baric]

Acting out of fear or hope for a reward is part of our moral system. It is certainly "acting morally." Since love is just a personal emotion, acting "out of love" is not morally superior to acting out of fear of hope for a reward. People who act out of love are no "better" than people who act out of fear.

When I was in high school, we studied morality and things like Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Kids don't learn this anymore?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Pascoea]

What's so bad about wanting a reward? Do you work for free?

Nothing wrong with working for a reward. But I'm with the GP on this one, if you need to fear judgement by your creator in order to not act like a dick, then you're probably doing it wrong. Now, looking to guidance from a supreme being (the "what would Jesus do" type of people) that's a different thing. Nothing wrong with taking a moment to stop and think "what would the most morally right person I can think of do" before doing something would probably go a long way to fix things wrong with this world.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Pascoea]

I'll take this one!

Does God tell them directly?

Well, no, my religious leader told me. I think his leader told him. And there's this book.

How do they even know which version of God is the right one?

Well, obviously mine is. I have no reason to believe that all of the people that subscribe to my belief system could be wrong!

Why do people disagree about what God wants?

Well clearly they are just bending the truth to suit their needs!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[PopeRatzo]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

Does it matter if they're "just trolling"? You can find many strongly-held beliefs where there is always doubt as to whether proponents are "true believers" or "just trolling", but functionally they are the same.

How many supporters of Donald Trump are "just trolling" and in what way do they differ from those who are actual believers that he has been ordained by God to lead America? How many were 4chan shitposters who do what they do for the lulz and how many honestly believe he is the greatest of all American presidents? Does it matter?

Irony has been weaponized against us. The "just trolling" crowd is being used by people in power and people who mean us no damn good. The goal is to make us believe that nothing is true. Orwell warned us this would happen, but we didn't realize where the real threat would come from.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Pascoea]

it depends. I've seen a few that believe all the other planets are spherical, we are the only disc.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[William Baric]

Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists are an insignificant minority.

From my point of view, the real problem with this wave of anti-intellectualism comes first from those who deny biology. I live in Quebec and not only these anti-intellectuals were able to force the government to change the law according to their belief system, but they also implemented their "gender theory" as part of what is thought to small children in school.

Another dangerous group of anti-intellectuals are those who believe in some sort of climate apocalypse. This group is also powerful enough to have been able to change laws, even if it's detrimental to the economy and a direct threat to fundamental values like freedom.

(Just in case you don't get it, your political bias and your own anti-intellectualism are showing.)

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[PopeRatzo]

A critical thinker will often change his mind, sometimes his whole outlook on life without falling into a deep crisis, or resisting the change out of a subconscious fear of that change.

Bang on.

That is a pretty rare kind of human being I've unfortunately come to realise.

Not so rare, I think. I've been encouraged recently by people who are wiling to open their minds. I'm old enough to remember when miscegenation was considered shameful and in some places, illegal. People's minds changed on that, and widely. There was a time when most gay people were closeted. Gay marriage was unthinkable. That changed completely in less than a decade. I was alive when people only admitted to being socialists in anonymous mimeographed newsletters. Now, there are socialists elected to congress.

If you look closely, you can even see minds changing around here.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[DamnOregonian]

I'd also caution about encouraging people to consider every argument against their beliefs.
There has to be a bar of credibility, otherwise you'll spend your entire life trying to prove the world isn't flat.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Applehu Akbar]

If the earth were flat, cats would have already knocked everything off it.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Kyr Arvin]

Where the fuck are the stars in the moon landing video?

They're there, but the camera was not set to capture them. It was daytime on the moon, and the camera was set for a narrow aperture and a quick exposure so the image wouldn't be completely blown out. A wider aperture and longer exposure would have captured the stars, but the ambient light would need to be lower, and you'd have to stand very still to not blur the shot. Moon landing hoaxers (and hoax "true believers" in general) are good about moving the goalposts rather than admit they were incorrect about something, so if we took pictures from the moon with stars in them, they'd say "well sure, they're just doing that because they were caught, and are trying to repair the damage to their story." Or some other BS argument that validates their belief in a shadowy conspiracy.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think he get's a kick out of it.

Does he have an opinion on apostrophe usage?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people genuinely believe God is a human-like decision maker, rather than merely a metaphor for their innate moral system?

Pretty anyone who believes in God. The idea that man created God is not a popular belief within most religious groups.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[phantomfive]

Critical thinking means coming up with a coherent set of thoughts, supported by some amount of evidence, that is more likely to reveal the truth than pure guessing.

Well said.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your are not as well versed in Christian religion as you think your are. Many/most Christian religions explicitly acknowledge that one is NOT saved by one's actions but, rather, the simple belief in Jesus as the Christ. It is this realization that Jesus is the Christ that makes disciples want to follow the teachings and example of Christ. That makes for "better" people but does not mean that believers will earn their reward for being good. The reward is already in place and cannot be lost.

Perhaps more real knowledge about Christianity would be useful. I suggest that there are a lot of Christians who would be more than willing to help you.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[phantomfive]

You just like to argue.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Mister Transistor]

Just like the healthcare industry, people's moral centers should not be based on profit-making motives, whether monetary or in the form of promised eternal salvation.

It's unfortunate that they are, or seem to be, but that's the human condition, apparently. Sad things are this way, but they always have been and probably will continue to be as long as there are selfish, stupid humans.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need God to act morally, you're not acting morally. You're just acting out of fear or hope for reward.

You're not wrong, but there are plenty of people who need that kind of guidance. Currently a lot of folks subscribe to moral relativism, and I'd say morality out of fear is better than that.

* https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their views are conformal mappings of your view. Does this make sense mathematically?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people have so much passion about this then why do they say sunset instead of sunclipse. As the world rotates it eclipses the sun. It doesn't land on the earth.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

May her hooves never be shod, amen.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Way too many.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[serviscope_minor]

One it has to do with falsifiable predictions for the future (which currently they are not - or have been proved wildly inaccurate.)

No that's bullshit denialism. Go look at the first IPCC report. It has predictions with error bars. The current measurements fit within those error bars.

Since you dey reality off the bad, everything else you say lacks credibility. I can't really be bothered to wade through it to see how else you're going to misrepresent reality.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a lot more respect for the person who acts kindly out of love for his fellow man than I do the person who acts kindly because they think God is going to reward them for it.

You have respect for people who do things for no reason?
You have respect for the superstitious?
You have respect for those who waste their own resources (time, money, etc.) and gain nothing in return?
How very scientific and intelligent of you. I tip my fedora to you, sir.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

If the number of "believers" is going up then it might be that the number of critical thinkers is going up.

How does critical thinking lead one to the conclusion that the earth is flat?

Are you equating anti-science and denialism with critical thinking?

It has been known for a long time that the earth is a globe, and for a few decades now that it is an oblate spheroid. What is more, there are a lot of experiments that a group of people can undertake to determine that the earth is a spheroid, and even if not, that it is impossible to be a plane. No need to be a scientist, and no need for expensive equipment.

One simple one is the "noon at solstice" measurement. With gnomons, a group of people can measure the length of the shadow of a fixed length gnomon mounted vertically lengthwise at noon at the summer solstice at several different points.

The same experiment will measure the tilt, and when spread out in longitude as well as latitude, the results of a spherical structure lit by one source of light.

This experiment has already been done. The results? At the equator at noon on the summer solstice, the shadow is essentially vertical. The further north and south we go, the shadows of the gnomons will become longer and longer. If we include people at different longitudes they will have shadows in different directions lengthening until they are in darkness.

Simply saying "I don't believe it" is not critical thinking. It is denialism if you don't conduct the experiments to prove your alternative hypothesis.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

And he has to be able to think of alternate third hypotheses to not fall into the false dilemma trap (e.g. there is not only Darwinism and Biblical Creationism, there is also the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? .......And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R’amen.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

If you believe the people around you are sheep who are not thinking, dyeing your wool to be a more garish colored sheep who is also not thinking is not an improvement. In fact, it is sincere endorsement of sheep-thinking.

Explain? Because the majority of people on earth do not engage in critical thinking isn't too difficult to prove.

And you have tipped your hand - Authorities? I get my knowledge not from authorities but from science as far as possible.

And who called who sheeple? I know a lot of intelligent people who cannot think critically. "Sheeple" tends to tie in with your apparent political "Authorities" belief.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

And he has to be able to think of alternate third hypotheses to not fall into the false dilemma trap (e.g. there is not only Darwinism and Biblical Creationism, there is also the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Well, we all know that this third hypothesis is just complete nonsense. The only valid third hypothesis is, of course, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Hersey!!! perhaps even apostacy! Naught for you but stale beer and STD infected strippers!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

What's so bad about wanting a reward? Do you work for free?

Curious - since religion is the source of your morality, would you be a rapist or child molester if not for your religion?

Also - do people have sex in heaven? I really enjoy sex.

And given the divorce rate of Evangelicals, It must get pretty complicated with that nookie thing. Or do you just spend all your time worshiping the guy who would torture you forever if you didn't worship him?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

In Biblical Christianity, our motivation to do good should not be about fear of punishment or hope of reward. After accepting the gift of the payment of our sin debt, God asks us to love others as He loved us.

And if we don't, some apple eating asshole in 4004 BCE will have caused a kind, merciful and loving God to tortuure us for eternity. Tell me - after you r skin is charred to teh bone the first time, does it regenerate immediately, or does your kind loving and merciful gawd want it to fester and turn septic before the next round of his love?

Do you think that your gad watches the people he is having tortured, and is pleased that his greatest creatyion is undergoing such treatment?

All of your bullshit belief indicates absolutely no free will, an omnipotent creator that knows all things, one that knowingly creates humans that he knows he will incinerate when they die. No free will, a creator who is incredibly incompetent, creating creatures that do not meet his expectations - If he exists, I'd as soon go to hell rather than worship an incompetent and homicidal gawd, who plans on everlasting torture for me if I don't protect myself from him by worshiping him.

My hope is to descend into nothingness, and that is it. Waking up in heaven or hell would be the same unwanted situation to me.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

May I correct you?
FSB hell is ugly STD infected stripper factory and coors of any "type". So yes FSB hell is at or near Golden Colorado.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

Acting out of fear or hope for a reward is part of our moral system.

You have just shown exactly why so many Christians and other fundy type religions have people who preach one thing, then act in another way. The queer hater, the sexual puritan, so often are found bumping uglies with another guy or boinking a preteen girl.

Because they are filled with urges for homosexual sex, or get wood over prepubescent girls. So their religion is perhaps an attempt to keep away from them. But they fail.

Me? I've been an atheist since at confirmation time, the Bishop only wanted to talk about masturbation, and it was obvious he really enjoyed talking about teenagers stroking their wood or fondling their figs. Hmmmm.

But here's the catch. I don't care about what homosexuals do. I'm not one. And I think anyone engaging in sex with the prepubescent is not only morally wrong, but jeebuz k.ryst, it's completely physically wrong, the kids aren't ready.

I don't steal or kill people because I don't want it done to me. I don't boink the neighbors wife because I don't want him yencing mine. In fact, on the moral scale, I probably measure much higher than most evangelicals and fundies.

But I don't do these things out of fear. i do them because they make sense, simply treating others in the same way I want to be treated.

Ironic that I am presumably going straight to hell, but that guy who banged the 8 year old simply confesses his sins, "finds jeezuz, and this train is bound for GLORY! Can I get an amen?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

You know, the "I don't need God to be moral!" guys.

Oh, where does your morality come from?

If people believe that morality comes from God, how do they know whether an action is moral or not? Does God tell them directly? How do they even know which version of God is the right one? Why do people disagree about what God wants?

There is a pretty basic tenet, some times called "The Golden Rule" That pretty much is the basis of evolutionary morality. And when it has been violated and abused, it has often been at the hands of the religious.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

May I correct you? FSB hell is ugly STD infected stripper factory and coors of any "type". So yes FSB hell is at or near Golden Colorado.

That was brutal! But you aren't wrong. As me dear departed mom - who enjoyed a good beer now and again - used to say, "Coors is PeeWaa." I wonder if the FSM could get Genesee to make Genny Red again? Not that it was the best beer on earth, but it was lawnmower beer that actually had some taste. Actually got me to enjoy yard work.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

A critical thinker will often change his mind, sometimes his whole outlook on life without falling into a deep crisis, or resisting the change out of a subconscious fear of that change.

I think this wholly depends on the subject... losing religion was quite difficult for me due to the fears that were instilled in me while young.

It does seem to get easier to try to rid yourself of bias the more you do it though.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[walllaby]

Fine, but the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

We elected a Troll and many of his party appear to be proud of that fact. You can hardly blame youtube for the amount of Trolls in the world. When you give everyone a platform, you give every Troll a platform. You can police it to an extent, but in general its the cost of free speech in the modern age. There is no magical solution, well unless you want to flush freedom down the toilet. Some on the right might consider that a fine trade. I suppose youtube could add links to debunk the nonsense. That might be doable, if its not already doing it.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I suppose you can explain this photograph:

Checkmate, atheists!!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think this wholly depends on the subject... losing religion was quite difficult for me due to the fears that were instilled in me while young.

Yeah, I gradually grew suspicious when the nuns couldn't answer my questions in Sunday school, and the Old Testament tales seemed sillier and siller the more I learned about the world and science.

I also eventually realized that praying to God seemed an awful lot like praying to nobody!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass, that is a photograph of a drawing.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Darinbob]

The thing about Creationism is that it is just for a particular interpretation of the Christian Bible. None of these intelligent design researchers have claimed that the evidence points to the ancient Norse mythology to be the correct on, instead they claim the findings show that a literal reading of the Bible is accurate.

I visited a Creationism museum once. Maybe the last 1/3 of the displays were about ancient history, not creationism. The idea was to prove that ancient Egyptians really existed (a shocker, I know) and that they enslaved many Hebrews, just as the Bible said. It really was sort of disconcerting to see it turn into a basic history lesson. But the whole thing was all about how the Bible was right first and foremost. The "research" didn't really exist and instead was mostly counter explanations for various things, such as how the geological evidence didn't necessarily point to an ancient earth.

When I was a kid, my grandmother got me a few glossy books/pamphlets arguing against evolution from the Armstrong church (a big radio personality who started his own college). I liked those books, they talked about all sorts of strange animals like the platypus and the lungfish. However they did a terrible job of teaching against evolution because their arguments were so flat that even an eight year old could see through them ("this can't be true because the Bible says otherwise"). Instead they did get me very interested in biology :-)

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Darinbob]

And so there are indeed some Christians who feel this way. However I have a feeling that this may only be a minority of those calling themselves Christian.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Darinbob]

I've pretended to be an idiot for so long that even I believe it!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Darinbob]

No, these flat earthers with Youtube channels even do experiments. They're really bad experiements, but they do them. It's not just a sequence of ever louder denials.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Darinbob]

One of the more famous experiments was done to disprove a bet against a flat earther in England. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The scientist was Alfred Russel Wallace, essentially the co-discoverer of evolution who was a bit naive in thinking that the flat earther would ever actually pay up when losing the bet.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mooooooooooo! Cows say moooooooooooo!

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[astrofurter]

"those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another"

Those people _know_ they have been lied to many times by ostensibly trustworthy authorities. Therefore they quite reasonably distrust the pronouncements of credentialed "experts". Thinking, again quite reasonably, that many "experts" given voice in the semi-official media are charlatans, who peddle injurious lies for the narrow benefit of their own class or partisan interests.

I find the outage endlessly hilarious. A bunch of obvious internet trolls making "Flat Earth" videos (herpy derp derp herp!) has _succeeded_ at trolling the herd of "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!?!!1!" bros who believe everything an official journalist tells them.

The real issue here has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth. Rather it's all about the collapse of media credibility. Reading a "fact" in the New York Times used to suggest it was true. Nowadays publication in the NYT suggests it's false. Especially to the masses of working and lower-middle class people who have suffered dispossession and immiseration under 40 years of disastrously failed neoliberal economic policy. While being lectured about their "privilege" by silver spoon Ivy League mountebanks.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[astrofurter]

+1 observant

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

All feminists are rapists. (Everyone already knows this.)

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[astrofurter]

How's that Invisible Skyhook working out for you?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

Which is why USA is pretty much an idiocracy at this point in time. 1 supreme idiot is confidently in charge, no critical thinking skills required, just sound bites.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

All prayers should start with "Dear God, I would like to file a bug report..."

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

News has always been adjusted to suit the views of the newspaper owners, this is nothing new. The vast majority of what most papers print is true, the system of lies wouldn't work otherwise, the lies have to be used sparingly but they can be big lies. But yes, my suspicion is that the flat-earthers are trolling to increase their Patreon donations, it boggles the mind that anyone can believe the earth is flat after decades of photos of the earth and the other planets along with all of the other irrefutable evidence.

Nothing will change because governments like the majority of people to be unquestioning whether it's Trump saying we need a wall or people saying the earth is flat or politicians saying the latest undemocratic international treaty written by corporations is good for people (when's the last time you heard politicians discussing a treaty to harmonize corporation taxes?).

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but when your man made God is a jealous old thing, e.g. getting abraham to stick a knife into his son to prove that he loves God more, you don't have much of chance to do good for goods sake - prime examples are the Evangelicals and people like trump - they spout good deeds as long as someone else pays for it and you can keep the poor under foot.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

I'm not religious but how can there be free will under atheism? After all if everything runs like clockwork and consciousness is an emergent property of matter which is governed but a strict set of physics rules then surely there is no free will - clocks can't choose when they tick or which way the hand goes. /devils advocate.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

Can god even have free will?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Extrapolations can lead to absurd conclusions. Looking at the actual physics and economics is a safer bet to make projections or predictions.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[stealth_finger]

Not at all, you just need to declare all evidence contrary to your beliefs as being "fake".

You have be very creative to explain a sunset as "fake" when you can witness it yourself.

But then you just fall back on nasa as if that solves all problems or is even an answer to anything.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[GLMDesigns]

That's why I qualified it. We don't know to what extent we can continue at this rate. I'm far more confident for photovoltaics than I am for wind.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/ren...

You can download .csv files to get exact figures.

You can see the module price (not including installation) has dropped from $66 / W to $0.62/W in 2016. That's a 100x decrease in price.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

The major cost now is installation. And that can only drop so far.

Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer that, whatâ(TM)s free will? It is a philosophical concept. For your question to even be answerable, you have to provide a rigid definition.

Also, youâ(TM)re assuming a deterministic universe. The universe may, or may not run like clockwork, where the same start conditions always lead to the exact same sequence of events. However, at the quantum level, events may actually be truly random, and it may actually be unknowable if they are truly random or not. Either way, predicting the future based on current conditions is probably impossible as well. So, whether we are automata running on rails, or if we are a series of dice rolls, from our perspective it makes little difference.

So, seriously, what would free will be? Would it just be randomness? Or would it be based on rules? Or is it some magical thinking, rules-free, but also non-random phenomenon that happens outside of the physical universe?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[ilsaloving]

I'm really not sure what you're arguing about, since you basically just confirmed what I wrote.

I am fully aware of how science works. I didn't want to get into things like statistics and certainty, which is why I wrote it as "cannot guarantee an exact outcome", and why I used the sphericality of the planet as an example.

You just explained it differently than I did.

*shrug?*

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Livius]

How many people genuinely believe

I don't necessarily mean people who admit to it.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

You say, "... then you're probably doing it wrong".

What convinces of you this? How did you find yourself seeing it that way?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

I don't see what's bad about working for money. Do you work for free?

I can't afford to do that.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

Again, do you work for free?

I've been married for 15 years and never divorced. This is actually very common among people who are very active in their faith. There's a major numerical difference between those who say they are religious and those that live differently.

Nobody seems to know if there is sex in heaven. A famous preacher back in the 30's said, "If there's not there's something greater." I think you might find your interest in sex diminishes over time. A lot of young people think it can make their life worth living, but in truth meaning is chosen or it is an illusion.

I wouldn't be a rapist or a child molester if I wasn't led by the Bible, but I can think of a lot of other sexual misdeeds I would have probably embroiled myself in otherwise. Not sure where you were going with that question.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Pascoea]

What convinces of you this?

Life lessons. I don't have to punch someone in the face to know that I'm going to get hit back if I do.

How did you find yourself seeing it that way?

I've watched someone punch someone in the face. They didn't get smote by some supreme being, they got their ass kicked by the big son of a bitch that didn't like getting hit in the mouth.

Have a moral quandary? No need to get a mythical being involved. Ask yourself "how would I feel if I got punched in the mouth?" and respond accordingly. I realize that's an extreme example, but you can scale it up and down to suit the current dilemma.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is business , chrome hamster watch more

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[gnick]

Do you consider being a decent human being "work"?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm not religious but how can there be free will under atheism? After all if everything runs like clockwork and consciousness is an emergent property of matter which is governed but a strict set of physics rules then surely there is no free will - clocks can't choose when they tick or which way the hand goes. /devils advocate.

Clocks are an abstract of what humans call time. Which in itself isa sort of abstraction. Some folks even argue that time doesn't exist. So for me, it's kind of hard to go there on the free will argument.

And some have tried to argue that free will doesn't exist because in experiments with brain activity show particular avtivity before the person claims to know what answer they give to a question. Well - that's a shitload of interpretation.

Here's the thing for me. The biblical version of no free will involves an omnipotent being that knows forever. One who knew when he created the earth in October 4004 BCE that some 6000+ years later that Ol Olsoc or MrL0G1C was going to be religions, knows every single act that either of us will do our entire lives. We have no choice of breaking free of his knowledge.

Now for me, there is no doubt a certain amount of predictability in anything I do, and those who know me well can hazard a decent guess as to how I will react. But those are percentages or odds. While most of the time I rely on a rationale or simple logic oreven consistency, I've been known to make gut decisions that are more intuitive than anything else. Very seldom indeed, but that blows complete predictability away, without being purposefully contrary.

To me, the scientific arguments for no free will take a leap of faith that is not needed in the Christian omnipotent being that knows all and everything from creation to the end of time. His minions have no choice.

I do have a choice, unless I am wrong, and he knows everything about me.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

Can god even have free will?

Can God create a burrito too hot for him to eat?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

All prayers should start with "Dear God, I would like to file a bug report..."

Wel played sir. Well played indeed.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

You seem to be saying that you have free will because you can behave unpredictably or on gut instinct but either way you are still a mass of quarks and electrons all of which are governed by the laws of physics, it is that which is predictable. The choices you make are the choices of a machine moving according to the laws of physics there is only one course - that laid down by the laws of physics, it is fate, you would never have made any other choice. in the future you will only ever have one choice unless you have a spirit external to the machine which can change the course of the machine.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

Sounds like you're saying life teaches you that evil people suffer without supernatural intervention.

I agree with that.

What I don't understand is how fearing getting punched back is okay and fearing getting punished by God is not okay.

It sounds like you're saying the later isn't necessary, but sometimes people do seem to throw punches and people wonder if they're going to get away with it. I'm not sure necessity is a good thing anyway.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

No ... I'm in favor of being a decent human being, but it doesn't pay the bills.

I don't understand why it is okay for people to want money but not companies.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Quirkz]

Did you just confuse "round" with "perfectly spherical"? Because I'd say "round" in many cases just means vaguely spherical at best. Is a baseball round, even with the stitching? Is a grape round? A balloon? I'd say yes.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Pascoea]

What I don't understand is how fearing getting punched back is okay and fearing getting punished by God is not okay.

I have no issues with fearing retribution from your deity of choice, my issue is with people blindly using their religious teachings as their moral compass. In the history of the world that hasn't always tended to work out for the best. If people stopped at the "do unto others" part, I'd be fine with it.

It sounds like you're saying the later isn't necessary, but sometimes people do seem to throw punches and people wonder if they're going to get away with it.

Someone who has no fear of retribution from a real and provable threat aren't likely to be influenced by one that may or may not exist. I've seen plenty of people get away with doing bad things, that doesn't change my moral view of it.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[RespekMyAthorati]

And yet, there is a new video on Netflix called "Beyond the Curve" which refers to flat-earthers as

theorists who defend the belief that the earth is flat while living in a society that vehemently denies it

Theorists?

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Not one of them brings acknowledges that renewable energy production has been growing
in an exponential rate since the 1970s.
If we continue at this rate for another 20 years we will be close to fossil fuel
independent and another 40 years we will be out of the petro era completely.

And why the fuck would you believe that this exponential rate will continue?
Trends commonly grow exponentially at first, only to hit a growth wall soon after.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[RespekMyAthorati]

All FAKE!

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[RespekMyAthorati]

One simple one is the "noon at solstice" measurement. With gnomons, a group of people can measure the length of the shadow of a fixed length gnomon mounted vertically lengthwise at noon at the summer solstice at several different points.

FAKE! FAKE!
Besides, I don't believe in gnomes.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[GLMDesigns]

Why the fuck? Because it's been growing at this rate since the 1970s. It's not unreasonable to extend that for another 20 years. It MAY not happen, that's true.

But the pricing for photovoltaic cells has now dropped to the point where the cost of installation is the largest price factor. That is fantastic. Why? Because installation costs will drop fast as it becomes more commonplace and more modular.

The rate of growth has been doubling every 18 months or so since 1980. That's roughly 24 doubles. Is it too much to believe that exponential growth will continue for another 3 years (2 doubles)? How about 6 (4 doubles)? You make it seem as if I'm extrapolating 200 years into the future. No, I'm extrapolating 20 years.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

>> my issue is with people blindly using their religious teachings as their moral compass.

Given that people like feeling "informed" and in the know about things ... I am not sure what really grounds any given belief other than depth and genuineness. Any commitment is going to have a "blindness" aspect to it.

>> Someone who has no fear of retribution from a real and provable threat aren't likely to be influenced by one that may or may not exist.

I'm an "N of 1", of course, but I would have slept around in college and later if I didn't feel like it would put me on bad terms with my God. So I didn't. Take it as you will.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Pascoea]

I just want to point out that this is an awesome discussion. I love sharing disagreements in a reasonable conversation!

I am not sure what really grounds any given belief other than depth and genuineness

Add into that "consideration of other's beliefs" and you have a complete basis for a good religion. Just because your teachings say one thing is bad doesn't mean someone else's teachings hold the same values. As long as the golden rule is followed religiously (see what I did there) you and I aren't that far off.

I'm an "N of 1", of course, but I would have slept around in college and later if I didn't feel like it would put me on bad terms with my God. So I didn't. Take it as you will.

Sample of 1 myself, but there have been times where my morals in that respect likely are not aligned with yours. But as long as the wishes and morals of the other parties involved are taken into account (and respected) what is the harm? I would think that a loving and understanding deity would want what they created to be enjoyed to the fullest.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

You seem to be saying that you have free will because you can behave unpredictably or on gut instinct but either way you are still a mass of quarks and electrons all of which are governed by the laws of physics, it is that which is predictable.

It would seem that almost all decisions would be exactly the same though if we have no free will based on subatomic particles. . We aren't operating at that level.

The choices you make are the choices of a machine moving according to the laws of physics there is only one course - that laid down by the laws of physics, it is fate, you would never have made any other choice. in the future you will only ever have one choice unless you have a spirit external to the machine which can change the course of the machine.

This is starting to sound like the creationist's 2nd law of thermodynamics argument. That the only possible way for the universe to exist being that their god constantly tinkers with it. Because, you know - entropy.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can god even have free will?

That is an excellent question, maybe the ultimate question.

Why did God create the universe when 1) he was fine without it for eternity, and 2) he knew exactly what would happen. Why actually go through with it? What's the point? Did he have a choice? Did he HAVE to in some sense? Is he bound to time and destiny? Was he fated to be the Creator?

Does God ask "Why am I here? Where did I come from?"

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking more "relatively Flat Earthers". The mountains/valleys count for something.
The benefit of this YouTube nonsense is that it lets the rest of us know the scope of dumb in our world.
Don't censor it, let it thrive. It's gives us perspective we need. The only alternative I see is Orwellian.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Micah NC]

>> I love sharing disagreements in a reasonable conversation!

Glad you are loving it.

>> But as long as the wishes and morals of the other parties involved are taken into account (and respected) what is the harm?

Let's suppose a core life goal to graduate college (we could as easily consider the goal of avoiding it) and you orient all your choices around that. Then suppose someone comes and says, "Here, you can have this if you just drop your goal. No one notices, and no one cares if you take it." Suppose the thing they are offering you is scratching an itch so to speak. If you cave -whether you believe God is or not- you become separated from yourself and your life becomes un-recognizable to you. At that point it doesn't matter what other parties approve, your identity has evaporated. You have put yourself in an existential jail. Most people stew in this like a heavy, distant thing is weighing on them and they try to ignore it. People deal with it in other ways too.

So on that level it doesn't matter whether everyone else approves.

"Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves."
Romans 14:22

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

" We aren't operating at that level."
Except we are, this statement seems to be in denial of the fact that we are a mass of atoms. Some scientists would say that we aren't really making decisions we are simply conscious of the decisions being made by are brains and we are in effect simply watching those decisions which feel like us because that's how consciousness works. And there was a study IIRC that showed our brains indeed have already made the decision we think we are making before we are actually conscious of the outcome of the decision. Summary: you conscious merely watches the machine ticking.

I'm not saying I fully 'believe' this argument, I'm not one for having steadfast beliefs, I leave that to devote religious people but these are simply my understanding of ideas put forwards by scientists based upon their experiments.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ol Olsoc]

" We aren't operating at that level." Except we are, this statement seems to be in denial of the fact that we are a mass of atoms.

I do not consider that my thoughts are based on random interactions between atoms. It is possible that many random interactions happen, and somehow the thought process is tied to a selection, but that gets into conciousness, not free will. If that is denial, than so be it.

Some scientists would say that we aren't really making decisions we are simply conscious of the decisions being made by are brains and we are in effect simply watching those decisions which feel like us because that's how consciousness works.

I am my brain. When presented with input and the need for a decision, I take the input, think about different possible actions, than make the one I think is best. Others may and very often make a different decision. While this may involve chemical reactions, my brain - which is me - has given thought and weighed options, then come to a decision.

There is also a non-thought based reaction process. These are reflexes. If I bite my tongue, it unleases a reflex action that doesn't even reach my brain for processing. There is no free will in that. My jaw springs open almost immediately.

To me - if it is all fixed, there is no need for a brain at all. Just nerve centers, where every process is a reflexive reaction to an external stimulus.

Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrL0G1C]

You are your brain. I am my consciousness.

"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up all

[phonewebcam]

..over the globe"

We all saw what you did there.

staevation & deception leading killers of us s

[Anonymous Coward]

cease fire stand down.. truth+mercy=justice..

Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think these people really believe in a flat Earth.

They do it because it pisses off the "critical thinker/debunker" and "academic" types. They're very easy targets for something like this because they know they'll get a reaction (and don't understand they're being trolled).

Re: Trolls

[c6gunner]

It's pretty rare to see "critical thinker/debunker and academic types" even bother addressing flat earth claims, let alone get "pissed off" about it. Some things are just too stupid to be taken seriously. The response to things like 9/11 conspiracy theories or even moon hoax claims has been far stronger. If the goal is to annoy and get a rise out of people, you're far better off focusing on those topics.

Re:Trolls

[spazmonkey]

No. They are quite real, and it has nothing to do with anyone but their own personal need for a flat earth. There is a major conference of them held periodically near me, and I had to go see what was up. It seems to be primarily a religious thing actually. These people really just can't handle the idea of a large, cold, arbitrary, and uncaring universe that they are simply not in the center of. They MUST believe in the flat earth, because no matter who you talked to or how byzantine and strained the rationalizations, it all came back to - in their minds - proof of God. Of a master plan, of the comfort of an ordered universe, one in which we have a defined purpose for being here, and that it was all put here for us. That's what a flat earth means to them. It was really that simple. Its not trolling, its existential fear.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, you are mistaken, they really are that crazy serious, I think in part for some, especially among subsets of evangelicals such as calvinists, it solves the problem that they have some very specific beliefs including a literal requirement of a 6000 year old world, that Noahs flood happened, and everything else, exactly as described, to arrive at proof of their own personal salvation and the damnation of others, and these are so irreconcilably falsified by science, evolution, etc, that clearly either their beliefs or science must be utterly wrong. They really are deeply disturbed, that delusional to an extreme, and hence are actually dangerous. I think deplorables is the correct word to use for them.

Re:Trolls

[h33t l4x0r]

They MUST believe in the flat earth, because no matter who you talked to or how byzantine and strained the rationalizations, it all came back to - in their minds - proof of God.

I find it hard to take a cosmological model seriously if it can be disproved by a shovel.

Re:Trolls

[geantvert]

There are definitely trolls in the flat-earth community and I am pretty convinced that the majority of the 'famous' flat-earthers on Youtube are only doing it for the money. They are scam artists and their target is the myriad of scientifically illiterate people who genuinely believe their crap. Look at all the people who believe in unscientific ideas such as astrology, homeopathy, spiritism, power of crystals, ancient hidden civilizations, ... Add to that the bronze age cosmologies described by the holy books of most religions and you have the perfect environment to bring people to the border of the rabbit hole. Once they are there, Youtube provides the final kick to fall in the hole.

An important factor is the recent resurgence of creationism in the US and in most areas of the world where religious fundamentalists are thriving. Initially, the creationist movement was only targeting the Evolution Theory but all sciences are connected:
- The old ages of Earth and of the Universe are confirmed by Geology, Astrophysics, and Nuclear Physics (i.e. via Radiometric dating) so those sciences MUST be wrong.
- The common ancestry of all life forms is confirmed by DNA analysis, Paleontology and Anatomy so those sciences MUST be wrong.
- The Noah Flood is disproved by History, Geology, Climatology, DNA analysis so those sciences MUST be wrong.
- etc
The end result is that a fundamentalist preacher has no other choices than to denigrate all modern sciences to justify his bronze age beliefs.
Youtube and other social networks are not the cause of irrational beliefs but they provide a good environment to amplify them.

Re: Trolls

[Registered Coward v2]

It's pretty rare to see "critical thinker/debunker and academic types" even bother addressing flat earth claims, let alone get "pissed off" about it. Some things are just too stupid to be taken seriously.

And as Ron White say's "you can fix a lot of things, but you can't fix stupid, so don't even try."

Re:Trolls

[Erik Hensema]

I don't think they're trolling. Most, if not all, flat earthers are religious. Science makes their believes less relevant, and therefore scientific thinking should be rejected.

Re:Trolls

[Megol]

Do you also think the religious idiots out there are in it for trolling academics?

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on youtube and look at any of those Flat Earth conferences. The attendees strike me as new-agers, not religious Christians. You can say that new-age thought is religious, and I can accept that, but people conflate any type of Western spiritualism with Christianity which just isn't an accurate representation of these very different belief systems.

Re:Trolls

[r2kordmaa]

"Nobody can possibly be this dumb, they must be trolling" is a common trap to fall in. Sad fact is, there are more actual morons than there are trolls willing to act as morons.

Re: Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand how this works, flat earthers use a "you mad" argument, it is impossible to respond or react to "you mad" without seeming mad, even ignoring it makes you seem mad. The almighty "you mad" is utterly invincible, whoever utters those words first will always win the argument.

Re: Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

If a war broke out between the trolls and the orcs, ahem I mean flat earthers and anti vaxxers, I'll be watching from the bleachers, with my fellow Scientologists

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to take a cosmological model seriously if it can be disproved by a shovel.

Tell that to religious nut people. Then you would understand that there exists of people you hardly believe that they exist.

Re: Trolls

[c6gunner]

I find that responding with laughter usually works pretty well. The "you mad" types really don't like being laughed at. Makes them pretty mad.

Re:Trolls

[drinkypoo]

You can have an ordained universe without geocentricism. If their God is so great, he can make a universe, and not just a planet. Their failure is one of imagination, and it is arguably blasphemous in the bargain as it limits their supposedly unlimited deity.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm what?

subsets of evangelicals such as calvinists

a literal requirement of a 6000 year old world

Noahs flood happened

everything else, exactly as described

to arrive at proof of their own personal salvation and the damnation of others, and these are so irreconcilably falsified by science, evolution, etc, that clearly either their beliefs or science must be utterly wrong.

I am not certain why you think of of the things you listed makes someone a Calvinist, but Calvinists tend to be some of the most logical, rational and academically sound theologians out there. I think you may be thinking of Theonomists, which claim to be Calvinists, but Calvinists abjure Theonomy and it is considered as a Heresy.

For the record, Calvinism requires on read scripture literally, not literalistically. This means poetry is treated as poetry, history as history, a metaphor as a well metaphor. Try reading a single article from Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology. It was one of the first systematic christian theologies

Re: Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 conspiracy theories

Well the way how WTC5 went down is fishy. The rest seems OK.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be primarily a religious thing actually

Which is weird, since Christianity as most other religions never ascribed to a flat earth. Disagreements with Columbus were over the exact size of the globe, which the church had wrong by an order of magnitude. Even with Galileos case the shape of the planets was never in question, only their movement relative to each other (and the Copernican model was open to discussion for seventy years before Galileo made a mess of it - but that is just my opinion). American Christianity seems to make a damn good case for the inquisition, because that special kind of stupid needs to be caged and hung from a tower as example for all before it has a chance to spread.

Re: Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was the plane in the PA field? Aircraft do not just disintegrate in crashes.

Re:Trolls

[Comrade Ogilvy]

That is why The Vatican easily came to terms with Darwinian Evolution, because any beautiful and true theory/mechanism could be a useful towards His purposes when applied as a tool in God's hands.

Many so-called believers cannot actually accept a God that they cannot easily understand.

Re: Trolls

[UnknowingFool]

WTC5 went down due to planned demolition in December 2001. It was demolished because the top several floors where heavily damaged by the WTC towers collapsing. I’m guessing that the severe damage to floors 4-9 meant it was easier replace it with another building than repair the building. WTC5 is the counter example to the 9/11 assertion that collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 didn’t damage surrounding buildings.

Re:Trolls

[iwbcman]

Your equivocation here, as usual, obscures far more than it reveals. Lumping " unscientific ideas such as astrology, homeopathy, spiritism, power of crystals, ancient hidden civilizations" in with flat-earthers misses the point of being a flat-earther. Ideas, in and of themselves, are neither scientific nor unscientific, as such you are labeling that which does not exist. Believing the earth is flat is a an act of defiance against that which is commonly held and in such is comparable to the belief that the moon landing was fake. It is in essence a symbolic middle finger against the certitude and arrogance common amongst many who mistake their knowledge of science, technology and the progression thereof, for belief therein. Such a belief traces it's roots, intellectually, back to Diogenes, and is properly labelled kynical, the more humorous, less serious, misbegotten half-brother of cynism. Such a belief is harmless, other than the consternation it causes amongst those whose certitude is sacrosanct. Such a belief has virtually no significant consequences for those who hold it, it does not justify any particular action or inaction, nor does it provide anything to which to attribute things to, as in blame or accusation. The world is big, more than big enough to accommodate such folk for they are a threat to no one.

To compare such with Astrology, again, profoundly obscure what you are talking about. Astrology is, in it's myriad of forms, a field of human inquiry with dates back thousands of years and practiced in one form or another in most cultures in the world. The human mind apprehends the world vis-a-vis patterns and patterns in movement over time, and how they influence one another, are understood as constellations. The stars, planets, and other heavenly objects have provided us with a spectical to study and try to grasp since the dawn of time. The leap to try to understand human traits, characteristics, behaviors, and ultimately fate, as represented in the collage of constellations of heavenly objects is actually not so far fetched, in fact such has been obvious to many, many people throughout all of recorded human history. Astrology, as with any field of human inquiry, if applied with sufficient intellectual rigor and discipline can be understood as a science, for it represents a body of knowledge, notwithstanding however contentious that knowledge may be. Nowadays, many, who call themselves astrologers, are indeed far removed from anything scientific, and many are in fact charlatans, but that is not true of of all who practice astrology. In contrast to flat-eathers, astrology is a system of belief, which offers attribution, as in blame and/or accusation, it is seen in terms of causality, albeit necessary but not sufficient, it does not absolve one of personal responsibility and choice, but rather compliments such with additional explanatory models. Although it is not my cup of tea, I respect those who have dedicated their lives to the study thereof and although I do not engage in such myself I can appreciate the the worlds within worlds, and the fascination therein, that is proper to any field of human inquiry.

Perhaps it is a misnomer to refer to belief in flat-earth, due to the fact that such does not represent a system of belief, and is not attribitual and plays no role in our understanding of causality. Perhaps one grasps it better by understanding it simply as an attitude, a silent middle finger with a smile. As regards Homeopathy, I would suspect that what holds for astrology also holds for homeopathy, that many who currently associate with the label are charlatans, but that others have dedicated their lives with intellectual rigor and discipline and as such have built a body of contentious knowledge. And with regards to crystal power, I was so stoked when, back in the day, my neo-hippie friends came back from New Orleans swearing to me that they had run of gas and simply put crystals in the carburetor and drove back on crystal power, yeah man, give me another hit off that joint ;)

Re: Trolls

[c6gunner]

That very much depends on how they crash.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

Re:Trolls

[Rick Schumann]

No, friend, there are those who actually do believe in this nonsense, and that by extension the 'Moon landings' were faked. Someone really should round these people up and treat them for their delusions(s) before they injure themselves or someone else.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

creationism in the US and in most areas of the world where religious fundamentalists are thriving

The word you are looking for is "literalist", that is a very special group of people that against all tradition will take every word written literal, even when it wasn't meant this way in the text itself. Fundamentalists and literalists are unlikely to get along, since the second is its own special kind of stupid.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd, none of the ones I've come across were religious at all.
 
Conversely, none of the religious people I know believe that the earth is flat. Is this the truth you want to believe, or the truth as it is? Does it aid you feeling better about your life choices and beliefs if you can think that others who don't believe the same are foolish and misguided?

Re:Trolls

[Kyr Arvin]

You can have an ordained universe without geocentricism. If their God is so great, he can make a universe, and not just a planet. Their failure is one of imagination, and it is arguably blasphemous in the bargain as it limits their supposedly unlimited deity.

It's a belief that the bible not only gives a complete account of the origins of man and Earth, but the heavens as well. There can't be more if it wasn't described in the bible.

Re:Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

> Disagreements with Columbus were over the exact size of the globe, which the church had wrong by an order of magnitude.

No. It was Columbus that was wrong. While most intelligent people believed that the Earth was 24,000 miles around, Columbus thought it was only 17,000. From western Europe to Japan was 13,000 miles thus going westward was only 4,000 miles. He believed when he found land that he had reached the Indies (the East Indies) and died not knowing the truth.

Columbus also didn't 'discover' America, it had already been occupied for 35,000 years. The Vikings had a settlement there 500 years earlier. It has been alleged that when Columbus was living on Madeira some sailors of fishermen that had been blown over to the Caribbean by storms had made it back that far on the trade winds and that some of the 'discoveries' Columbus were already on their map.

Re: Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

There are serious attempts to debunk the Flat Earth claim.

For example "Flat Out Wrong: The Overwhelming Evidence Against Flat Earth" can be found on Amazon, and it dismantles the idiocy of Flat Earth with real-life counterexamples that everyone can observe.

Re:Trolls

[drinkypoo]

It's a belief that the bible not only gives a complete account of the origins of man and Earth, but the heavens as well.

But that's so dumb. The bible never claims to be a complete account. They're assuming such because it starts at what they perceive to be the beginning, but that is once again blasphemous (I'm not offended, except by their inconsistency) because it promotes the view that man can know everything God is up to. Such arrogance with their false humility.

Re:Trolls

[RespekMyAthorati]

Astrology is, in it's myriad of forms, a field of human inquiry with dates back thousands of years and practiced in one form or another in most cultures in the world.

And those same cultures universally accepted that the sun orbits the earth, but it doesn't.
Ancient beliefs are frequently wrong beliefs, and the idea that the movements of heavenly
objects influences human life is one of them. Otherwise, someone would have
produced reliable evidence that the predictions made by astrology hold true.
They don't.

what holds for astrology also holds for homeopathy, that many who currently associate with the label are charlatans, but that others have dedicated their lives with intellectual rigor and discipline and as such have built a body of contentious knowledge

If that were true, then the predictions made by homeopaths regarding the effects of super-dilations
on health would have some evidence to support it. It doesn't.

A question to more experienced folks here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Are those flat-earthers really, actually serious? Or are they just having fun and hoaxing? Kind of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something?

This is a genuine question. There are things which challenge my (otherwise healthy) fantasy, and this is definitely one.

Re:A question to more experienced folks here:

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be surprised how many are actually plain serious.

Re:A question to more experienced folks here:

[Opportunist]

There is actually two kinds. Just like with religion. The ones that really, really, REALLY try hard to believe it and at least convinced themselves, and now want to convince someone else to strengthen their faith so they don't "fall". To them it's quite a bit of a religious thing, and more often than not you'll notice that they follow some other religion and think that their holy book kinda "demands" that the world is flat, so they have to believe in a flat earth or their holy book could maybe be wrong, and that MUST NOT be.

And then of course there's the snakeoil peddlers that noticed that the former group is a welcome source of income.

Re:A question to more experienced folks here:

[AHuxley]

The more powerful social media will try to censor any topic, the more people get interested to see why its getting banned, deranked, reported and removed.

Re:A question to more experienced folks here:

[themusicgod1]

Yes. I've met them irl, they are serious. Sure there are plenty of people who do it for the lulz and really aren't clueless, but there are still hundreds of millions of people in the world who have an education that goes so further than about the fifth grade, and when *they* hear someone giving authoritative proofs about something, like the flat earthers, they genuinely believe them and it starts to become an uphill battle to undo this.

Re:A question to more experienced folks here:

[UnknowingFool]

The problem is those that disbelieve anything that doesn’t match their world view. In the case of flat Earthers, it is ridiculously easy to verify that Earth is round in a number of ways. The denial becomes increasingly complicated involving complex conspiracies. Joe Rogan of all people quipped that he was accused a shill for being against Flat Earth conspiracies. Paraphrasing him: “As if there’s a lot of round Earth money out there to collect.”

Re:A question to more experienced folks here:

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people of all kinds of religions other than just the "God" religion. Flat Earth is one of them. There is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" that is more of a farce than a cult. One that I feel is popping up more and more is "Veganism".

It is becoming to the point of religious status that more and more people are trying to defend veganism to the detriment of their health. It does take 4 or 5 years of the diet for their bodies to run out of nutriments and have heavy metals build up in their system to the point of killing their immune system. Then they start living with bacteria blooms in their intestines to the point that no mater what they eat or how much they eat, they will always loose weight.

I've watched many YouTube videos of these guys stating that they have been to doctor after doctor and they have decided that all these doctors are clueless and don't know what is going on with them. In reality they are just ignoring the truth that they no longer have an immune system and are living life on antibiotics. I have noticed a few videos from Vegans that have quit the lifestyle by eating animal protein and in a month or less that their symptoms have cleared up. Yet, still want to defend Veganism as a lifestyle almost to their death.

Their misguided way of thinking is almost the same as the Flat Earthers. Search YouTube for "Former Vegan" and when they say Vegan, substitute the word "Flat Earth" and you will see how similar they are.

Democracy was a nice dream

[lucasnate1]

It relied on the assumption that most people are rational, which in fact they were not. It was able to support itself using media gatekeepers which prevented mass-hysteria of the population and managed to keep them educated and informed to some extent. The moment that freedom of speech became absolute, and any idea of "knowledgeable" or "respectable" was lost, the truth about the populous was revealed. It was then that many people began to realize that democracy is based on a lie - that every man is rational.

Re: Democracy was a nice dream

[Anonymous Coward]

But but glyphosate is bad! Causes cancer! Why do they stick to one issue if they want to piss off academics? Why not roll all the worst ideas into one package?

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger problem though is that the gatekeepers got caught out too many times pushing various agendas and being used to disseminate disinformation rather than being reliable sources of information. It's basic psychology, people will, when faced with a source they don't trust, basically trust anything that doesn't come from that source, or contradicts it.

So the current crisis is to a large extent self-inflicted by the neo-liberal (not "liberal") establishment and their cronies, media and their ideologically motivated hostility to education of "the masses".

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[Opportunist]

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!
--Agent K, MiB

Or, as I tend to put it, the collective IQ of a group can be determined by taking the IQ of the biggest idiot and dividing by the number of feet.

The only thing the internet changed was that no loonie is alone anymore. Before the internet, anyone who had some batshit crazy outlook on life got a pretty quick reality check when his tinfoil hattery hit the reality of the rest of the world around him. Now it's easier than ever to find others who believe the same bullshit.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[swillden]

Or, as I tend to put it, the collective IQ of a group can be determined by taking the IQ of the biggest idiot and dividing by the number of feet.

Clearly, we need to use a group of legless amputees as our leaders.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[tomhath]

It relied on the assumption that most people are rational, which in fact they were not.

Democracy is far better than being ruled by a cadre of irrational tyrants.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the masses are undereducated - then you get the situation of modern day Africa.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[lucasnate1]

In a world of mass media, being ruled by the people ends up being ruled by a cadre of irrational tyrants (media tycoons and fringe movements that know how to get likes) whose words are constantly distorted further and further.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[Opportunist]

I'd suggest counting the nurses' legs, too, for the sake of not running in an unsolvable mathematical problem.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[phantomfive]

I don't think democracy relies on people being rational. Government isn't about rationality in a lot of aspects, it's about desires. Should we pave the road, or not? Should we have a post office?
Democracy is a way to change governments without violence, which happens with kings. Don't make your expectations too high.

Re:Democracy was a nice dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Darth Vader?

(sp) starvation

[Anonymous Coward]

no one else should die from that

Re:You don't really know anything

[wolfheart111]

until you've seen it for yourself... this group is the epitome of this rationality. I love these guys :)

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not nice to make fun of the curvature impaired. And let us not forget the concave earthers. Yes, apparently that's very much a thing, too, so I think I will go out tonight and watch the city lights of China in the sky....

Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who goes crazy over the flat earthers and I swear they are 99% trolls. Seriously, it's there.

Flat Earther Here

[wolfheart111]

We are in a simulation, so the earth must be flat like a CD or circuit board... lol

Re:Flat Earther Here

[mentil]

Evidence that we're not in a 'holographic universe' suggests that our universe wasn't optimized for data efficiency, which is a strike against the simulation hypothesis; a hologram would be flat though. A simulation computer would probably use solid-state 3d chips though (a la 3d NAND). A block of computronium would probably be programmed like an FPGA, so there'd be no circuit boards; traces would be replaced with vias and internal allocation of resources.

Re:Flat Earther Here

[abies]

I don't see a reason why world in which simulation hardware runs should be in any way similar to ours. It can be as well 4d spatial dimensions one, with multiple spin axis for elemental particles etc. I think it makes sense for each deeper simulation level to be significantly simpler than previous one (same way as we would not run full quantum-level, universe scale simulator in our world, but rather do a lot of simplifications to reduce required data complexity).

Re:Flat Earther Here

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't optimized for data efficiency, but we are clearly a running program, not a static bit of data stored on a hard drive.

Arguable there are lots of different things going on in the universe, But very little interaction that varies...

Galaxies pull on each other, and shine light at each other, but those are consistent for the most part.... and there is a long queuing period between any bit of data from one galaxy reaching another...

Within the galaxy solar systems do the same, again with a long queuing time for data exchanges... with in a solar system planets and other bodies do the same, shorter queueing times, and more interaction perhaps, but still minutes between something changing and the light getting to the next place...

While we aren't optimized for storage, we seem to be really well optimized for parallel processing.

Re:Flat Earther Here

[Oligonicella]

I don't see a reason why world in which simulation hardware runs should be in any way similar to ours.

A total lack of evidence?

Re:Flat Earther Here

[Anonymous Coward]

a hologram would be flat though.

We're living in a hologram created in a 4-D universe. Such a hologram would itself be 3-D. Refute.

A simulation computer would probably use solid-state 3d chips though (a la 3d NAND). A block of computronium would probably be programmed like an FPGA, so there'd be no circuit boards; traces would be replaced with vias and internal allocation of resources.

A simulation computer modeling our universe and ourselves would probably be using technology we couldn't even guess at.

I agree that we're not living in a simulation/hologram, just looking for better arguments as to why.

Re:Flat Earther Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about universe simulation and are requesting evidence. The entire thing is hypothetical and I think it is extremely naive to think that, given what we know about the world, that any simulation would involve anything remotely like our "computers". I think it is mostly agreed that if we are in a simulation our "physics" IS the simulation. There is not a "simulation" of the physics... that then gets "displayed".

Our computers are so crude a comparison is not very good, but I will try:

All the rules that we encode into a processor... the electrons follow those rules. Those are the "rules of physics" for that "universe" inside the CPU. If the electrons became self aware and studied the rules it would be erroneous for them to conclude that a separate computer is somehow running a simulation of the CPU and displaying the results to the electrons. That is what you are assuming: this stupid idea of a calculation and then a display. The electrons moving through the CPU ARE the "simulation". The display is so we can see the results at a human scale.

If we are in a simulation and a higher power created it then maybe they would want a display of the "results". But things in the simulation would not necessarily be aware of that the display and the display (if it exists) has nothing to do with the core of the simulation.

Pastafari?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the pastafari believe in the FSM, then why should these people not believe in a flat earth? ;)

Yeah probably not.

[Crashmarik]

Most of these people I have met were obviously having a good time at the expense of the very credulous. Not unlike the way tribesman like to have fun with anthropologists that ask them do they know where babies come from.

So yeah youtube hasn't made more believers in the flat earth (really have the never seen a lunar eclipse or did they just write it off as being a giant hoax ?) but I am sure it has created many more opportunities to distribute flat earth videos.

this is what happens..

[Anonymous Coward]

when you take the science out of the science classroom.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[h33t l4x0r]

Yes, obviously they are popping up all over the "plane".

Easy scapegoat. No, it's the lack of education.

[Anonymous Coward]

More and more money is shifted away from education and social safety nets and towards warmongering and fearmongering ... The media is stuffed with propaganda and lies ...

But let's blame the messenger!
And let's not fix the problem. Ever.

Great *thinking* there! ... Oh, wait!

Flat Earther IQs average

[Anonymous Coward]

My hypothesis, and I think it's a good one, is that the average Flat Earther has an IQ considerably lower than average. Similiar to those that believe the manned lunar landings were a hoax.

shape of planet distraction repeat

[Anonymous Coward]

whatever near perfect shape our big blue egg is we're wrecking it faster than we pretend we're not?

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[mentil]

The Earth is flat from the point of view of the 4th spatial dimension. Flat-Earthers are actually cosmic horrors possessing the weak-minded.

I watch FE vids sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

because they help me sleep. Most of them are so monotonous, repetitive and boring that they rival AMSR as sleep aids.
I am not kidding.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Opportunist]

Enough is ENOUGH! I have had it with these motherfuckin' flattards on this motherfuckin' plane!

Youtube is for illiterate people

[Vitus Wagner]

Ones who start with Youtube, probably have trouble reading text, so they prefer video as source of information.
Of course, most of flatearthers are those who haven't read their textbooks in school.

Re:Youtube is for illiterate people

[Oligonicella]

Really?

i can tell you how to fix that

[FudRucker]

you got to convince the flat earthers that the earth is really a cube, then gradually soften the corners of the cube so it is back to being a sphere

Re:i can tell you how to fix that

[mark-t]

Actually, a tetrahedron.

Haven't you ever heard of the expression "the 4 corners of the earth"?

Re:i can tell you how to fix that

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4 corners are Aconcagua, Denali, Mount Kenya, and Everest.

Re:i can tell you how to fix that

[Eubeleus]

I thought you were dead, Time Cube guy!

Re:and they just went on record they are elminatin

[Opportunist]

They're not eliminating it, they just don't promote it anymore. I.e. you won't get it in your "recommended" list anymore.

Doesn't keep flattards from crying CENSORSHIP, of course.

So What?

[BBF_BBF]

These people would have latched onto some other pseudo scientific belief if it wasn't "flat earthism" if youtube didn't exist. Youtube didn't make these people illogical, it just gave them something to latch onto.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Errol backfiring]

All over the disc, that is. I wonder if their compasses have directions named H (Hubwards), T (Turnwise), R (Rimwards) and W (widdershins) as well.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Anonymous Coward]

They're having it on the moon, you insensitive clod!

Can't keep the narratives straight

[ckatko]

The media is complicit in so many narratives they can't keep them straight. Or, they just assume their readers will take them at their word and never fact check them.

If YouTube creates more flat earthers (as opposed to simply attracting existing ones), then can't the same be said for radical Islam? Which means we SHOULD be taking it far more seriously than they want us to currently?

Re:Can't keep the narratives straight

[DogDude]

See the post immediately above yours.

trolls but real believers too

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are plenty of trolls and scammers in this bunch, no doubt, any "movement" that gets started on the Intertubes gets its assortment of hangers on.

But there are obviously lots of true believers too.

And then besides the true believers there are also those that regardless of how strongly they feel about flat Earth specifically, they love anything that is anti-science because they're trying to gaslight humanity into questioning objective reality

Don't worry...

[VeryFluffyBunny]

...the Vril will take care of those gullible flat-earthers when they arise from their subterranean lair.

Can't fix stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The flat Earth people seem to be people who just will not accept the many pieces of proof that this is not the case. Its on the spectrum of something you want to believe so you won't ever accept anything presented as proof. Sort of like people who think socialism can work.

Re:Can't fix stupid

[ImprovOmega]

Socialism can most certainly work, as long as no one acts like a greedy, self-centered, free-loading asshole. In other words, it can never work for humanity.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Anonymous Coward]

Well , the flat earthers themselves tweeted that on their twitter feed. I'd link it but twitter is a cesspit of infected shit, so I shan't.

Re:what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that ignorant people vote.

Re:what is the problem?

[sheramil]

why is that in this era that we are living in, people can't believe in what they want?

For flat earthers, I don't mind if they believe what they believe, as long as they aren't put in charge of map-making, arranging routes for cargo ships, or setting orbits for satellites.

There are other varieties of "ignint" [tm Zappa] that are actively dangerous; vaxxers, for example (I can't see their problem, really - the Vax 11-780 was a cool machine for its time).

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[sysrammer]

Nice.

Flat earth interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If weâ(TM)re in a virtual world and everything at quantum level isnâ(TM)t even real, then why couldnâ(TM)t the earth be flat? Not a conspiracy theorist that the entire planet is in on a big joke and Iâ(TM)m the only one not in on it. But why not? Weâ(TM)re told what to think in school, not how. Interesting isnâ(TM)t it.

Re:what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can believe in what you want but that doesn't make it true. All beliefs are not equal either.

That such beliefs are not harmful to society is not true.

There will be a problem if there is a majority of such beliefs in the population - you wouldn't want to have flat earthers decide on the next NASA budget.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[LordHighExecutioner]

If you have not seen the conferences, it is because they pop up on the other side of the globe with respect to where you live.

Not flat - we checked

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA-logo t-shirt

The article headline is highly misleading

[kgroombr]

YouTube is not to blame for people believing that the world is flat. There are many posts that argue both sides, so if a person watched and listened to both sides of the argument, then they could formulate their own opinion. The problem is that people tend to sway to things they already believe in, and support their ideology, so they are typically getting only one side of the argument; thus, it reinforces what they already want to believe. YouTube is to blame for this, like a spoon is to blame for making me fat.

Re:The article headline is highly misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is not youtube, as a giant repository of video on all kinds of things. The real problem is the algorithm that suggests videos for watching. The algorithm is probably right as it is, if someone enjoys flat earth stuff they may very well enjoy more flat earth stuff. I guess that youtube could modify the suggestion algorithm to offer pro's and con's for subjects but that almost certainly would piss people off too. Imagine someone who watched a video named "Why X fails" seeing suggestions of "Why X is great" for a bunch of values of X.

This is the problem with all social media that suggests similar topics. Users get suggested more and more articles of a similar nature. They have to manually search for the videos named "Arguments against the earth being flat".

Re:The article headline is highly misleading

[phantomfive]

Yeah. A lot of times the problem isn't a person's analytical thinking, it's their information gathering skills. If the only thing a person can find is pro-flat-earth information, then they're likely to start believing it.

Re:The article headline is highly misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does intend to fix it so conspiracy theory videos no longer appear in recommendations.

https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/01/25/1915201/youtube-to-curb-conspiracy-theory-video-recommendations

Establishment media campaign against Youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

I think an establishment media campaign, in preparation for the next election cycle, has started against youtube. Youtube is the current #1 source of alternative news media and is the least censored mainstream hosting right now. Key word: Mainstream. I've seen 4-5 negative youtube stories distributed in MSM, all different, all within the last 3-4 days.

Re:Establishment media campaign against Youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd care to find a few critical thinkers who go against the mainstream, most are at least mirroring their content on BitChute as a hedge against being banned.

It's probably one of the best "alternatives" so far.

Thanks 4chan

[Anonymous Coward]

For yet another hilariously contrived hoax to dupe morons.

Re:what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Just look at California.

Slashdot Headlines

[Dan East]

YouTube To Blame For Rise in Flat Earth Believers, Says Study

While Landrum didn't explicitly blame YouTube for the rise in flat Earth believers

When your headline is so inaccurate that it is contradicted right in the summary...

Re:Slashdot Headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

... then you must be reading an msmash post!

YouTube Is To Blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube is to blame?

Are you sure that it isn't epic fucking morons that are to blame?

Are you sure it's not tolerance and acceptance of diversity of beliefs of drooling fucking morons that is to blame?

YouTube is a video platform FULL of fake horseshit. That mouth breathing idiots, whose brains are likely incapable of sustaining even involuntary activities like maintaining their heartbeat at the same time as any cognitive activity, believe it has nothing to do with YouTube per se.

I guess people forget about books and magazines

[pgmrdlm]

Seriously, the tin foil hat wearers use to read books on the subjects they believed in. Or subscribed to magazines that was geared to those type of tin foil theories. YouTube may have increased the number of idiots, but they were always around. And they always had material they could read on the subject. YouTube is not the catch all for the ill's of the world. Those ill's were always here, and just fed and nurtured in different ways.

A prelude to censorship

[kbaud]

Several articles now have talked about how youtube is feeding various undesirable ideas. I suspect this will be followed by calls for censorship.

Re:A prelude to censorship

[nucrash]

That's my biggest issue and yes that's a slippery slope argument.

I do think that algorithms for videos should work to push scientifically backed counter videos. I know this is possible because this is already done with advertisements. The difference is they have to make this decision based on morality and not advertising dollars. That can be tough for a billion dollar corporation to do.

Nothing you can do.

[goodgame]

These are people who believe NASA guards the ice wall. The second Google identifies and 'educates' these misguided people, it'll only fuel their us vs. them mentality.

Slashdot is flat?

[NaughtyNimitz]

Are there Slashdot readers that believe that the Earth is flat? Or what demographic are we speaking of: Luddites that only read bibles and watch youtube on their Walmart PC?

Sucks for the people who fall for it, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Occasional crackpottery is the price of intellectual freedom.

The study is flawed then.

[Chas]

Simply because Google/YouTube returns something in a search doesn't mean it's responsible for the content in the search.
And if some potato heads choose to play "pretend" that the world is a dinner plate, that's fine.
We are NOT the friggin' Thought Police.

We simply correct for it elsewhere (such as if said potato heads gain some form of temporal authority).

Re:what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh the Californians don’t vote stupidly , that’s for the flyover deplorables. Here’s a basket, in you go.

lmao

[Anonymous Coward]

>flat Earth conventions have begun popping up all over the globe.

Now that's just darn ironic... :D

some good info out there

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, the vsauce one was pretty good!
the isaac arthur one was good too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGu-DYTYzzE

p.s. holy shit 25M views for the vsauce one, no doubt youtube brainfucked algo pick that up as pro-flat earth.

Re:Flat Earther IQs average

[JcMorin]

I think the earth is flat but I don't *think* they send human to the moon. Everything is just wrong. Have you imagine the complexity of flying back out of the moon where you not only need to bring the fuel to fly but also the oxygen as there is no atmosphere there. The landing would have been a crash just like when we send rover to mars... it's not a soft vertical landing ready to fly back! I'm not 100% convince of that but it's pretty weird that decades later with all the tech we have, they are not able to anything remotely close to do it again. It was a political promise and they realized it in the last year. Missing selfy with earth or sun or stars in the background, Why we can see the hover there with our telescope? The more I read about the more question get raised with little to back the claim. The flaw earth on the sense is more like: I don't trust any of the fact given that I can't proved myself. Obviously unlike you want to cross the Antarctica by foot yourself you can't really do it. At least Colin O'Brady did it before us. https://www.nationalgeographic...

It's not Youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Water fluoridation

This is simply a test balloon to ban critics

[Anonymous Coward]

It is irrelevant to argument for or against flat earthers per se, it is a social problem. Everyone who went on a long transcontinental flight or a high altitude flight can attest seeing the curvature live and with their own eyes, different seasons, weather and day / night cycles depending on distance to the equator are indisputable. The ancient Greeks calculated the curvature and circumference with the shadow of sunlight falling into water wells.

So why are we talking about this, why is this easily disproven theory routinely and often in the same sentence lumped together with other theories that are much much harder to disprove into one amalgamate of "conspiracy theories" that are all equally false, equally dumb and need equal and strong countermeasures to protect the public opinion about the good and right way how the powers that be determined them to?

It slides other topics, it baits a lot of posters into wasting quite a few hours into debating, researching and disproving TFE, only to have it pop up next morning in the next videos, the next threads and the next discussions. It devalues the perceived sanity of other anons and poisons a lot of other conspiracy theories. It also provides an easy incentive for the ever present "authorities" (including forum mods) to "ban" and "steer" topics and generate precedence and acceptance for doing so. Assuming for a second, "the flat earth" (TFE) is a pincing move by TPTB to undermine and derail any forum outside the mainstream opinion by paid shills disguised as posters and forum authorities on the other hand, to form a prime example of what the chans are now calling "discord and confusion (d&c)". Would that be presenting itself like what we are observing now?

Just make it illegal to belive the earth is flat!

[Anonymous Coward]

It works well on other topics!

Why should people have the right to think wrong?

No, you just ASSERTED they are not idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't explain how you know they are not.

You're asserting what they're trying to do, again out of your own ignorance and deep desire to support the contrarian point of view without actually coming out and saying you are a flat out denier of whatever your conspiracy "theories" you hold yourself requires you to refuse to support your beliefs.

Again, there's that "do not mistake for malice that which is explained by incompetence" has a counterpoint: what's the difference in the end between them: a fucking idiot flat earther and a troll flat earther will still make other conspiracy nuts feel like they are right.

Here, this is a case you will likely get because you're
a) christian
b) not muslim
c) news allows you to hate muslims for reasons

What is the difference between an imam preaching to suicide bombers out of trolling and an imam preaching to suicide bombers out of deep convicted faith?

Fuck all.

The converts will STILL be convinced that they are doing god's work by killing themselves along with others, even if the one exhorting them to do it believes this is god's work or knows it's bollocks.

Flat earthers bleating on about their conspiracy, whether troll or idiot, are still trying to convert and at the very least firm up the faith of the already faithful in the face of reality telling them they're full of shit.

Re:No, you just ASSERTED they are not idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's turtles all the way down.

Re:No, you just ASSERTED they are not idiots

[Cito]

To sidetrack, I like your example.

To use a Christian example.

(rhetorically)
A preacher/evangelist preaching "prosperity theology". Telling listeners or congregation if they "sow a seed" (faith), and give him money, the more money given then "more seeds sown". And that for every seed sown it will grow and blossom multiplying into riches that God will reward them with a 100 fold return.

So morally what's the difference between the evangelist that knows it's completely bullshit or the small town preacher that truly believes it.

When their followers still believe either and think giving all their money to the preacher/ evangelist, some giving their rent money believing with immense faith that God will make them rich. :-P

Re: No, you just ASSERTED they are not idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Butthurt AC troll is butthurt.

Re:what is the problem?

[AHuxley]

Censorship has to start with some topic and then grow. Flat earth is just the natural growth of censorship.
Wait for the next set of topics to get removed, reported, not found.

A bad thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your asinine post is like asking if fraud a good or bad thing,because any rational skeptical person who takes care will not fall for a fraud, so it is at least unnecessary to forbid actual fraud, and it can also lead to false positives, harming "free enterprise".

Re:And speaking of pulling people's chains

[DontBeAMoran]

Is it? I may be Canadian, but I'll still celebrate anyway. Today instead of my usual grape-flavoured vitamin C, I'll take an orange-flavoured vitamin C.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[DontBeAMoran]

The Earth is not flat from the point of view of the 4th spatial dimension. It's still a mostly-sphere shape, without a 4th spatial dimension.

You live in three spatial dimensions. Do you call two-dimensional squares "flat, one-dimensional lines"?

How can earth be real...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if our eyes aren't real?

Stop misremembering old New Scientist articles

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't "the leading cosmologists" you fucking retard.

The holographic principle, however, NO MATTER WHAT BOLLOCKS YOU MISREMEMBER, is NOT about the world being 2D,you blithering idiot. It's a four-dimension (or higher) reflection of a higher dimensional reality. NOT about the universe being a 2D plane, fuckwit.

And it was NEVER "the leading cosmologists". It was a hypothesis by two.

Thought police?

[NormAtHome]

I'm the last person to argue that the earth is flat since all evidence is to the contrary but I also think that there are concerns over free speech and that "she does believe that Google could be doing more to stop the spread of scientifically incorrect ideas" she thinks google should do something to suppress idea's or beliefs and that in and of itself should be cause for concern. There are a lot of conflicts between what some people believe and what science says, the anti-vax movement is such a instance with plenty of scientific study's saying vaccinations don't cause autism but there also appears to be plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite. I find it very dangerous to even consider giving a company like google the power to suppress idea's or to try and silence people who have a opinion that's not supported by science since aside from free speech there are also censorship concerns.

Re:Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, some conspiracy theorists actively try to censor youtube videos debunking their nonsense. And they sometimes succeed - the zetetist youtubers have to argue with Youtube staff on several occasions not to be striked.
They are crying censorship , yet they have no qualm censoring others. Sorry, but at this level they deserve the smack in the face of being deprioritized - still not censored.

Re:Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want Google being the Thought Police on any topic.
Let it all stand on its own merits, and the idiots will reveal themselves.

Re:Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop using apostrophes to pluralize. You're trying to say something intelligent, and it makes you look like an idiot.

Re:Thought police?

[Woeful Countenance]

I don't want Google being the Thought Police on any topic. Let it all stand on its own merits, and the idiots will reveal themselves.

Indeed. If videos promoting belief in a Flat Earth are removed, where is the line drawn? What about promoting belief that some Supreme Being created the universe and still watches everybody to make sure they're being good? What about belief in the resurrection or transubstantiation? What about people who believe, say, that it's evil for Russia to meddle in US elections but entirely appropriate for the US to choose the president of Venezuela?

Re:Thought police?

[jeff4747]

but there also appears to be plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.

Here's the thing: There isn't plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.

There's the appearance of this because there's a whole lot of people trying to extract money from gullible people. After all, the gullible are fantastic financial targets, since you can just say anything and they'll keep buying your expensive snake oil.

These money extraction efforts are served by YouTube's current algorithm because it plays grifter after grifter until viewers start to think there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. There's no particular reason YouTube's algorithm has be reinforcing like this. The viewer is obviously interested in this particular subject, but they don't have to be presented with only the grifter side of the argument.

Re:Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the last person to argue that the earth is flat since all evidence is to the contrary

Sounds like someones leaving themselves some wiggle room....

Re:Thought police?

[NormAtHome]

You say "Here's the thing: There isn't plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite." but there are plenty of families (mothers and fathers) interviewed saying "My kid was normal, walking and talking and then he got 5 vaccinations at once and two weeks later he stopped talking and was diagnosed with autism". It's stories like that, that have been fueling the anti-vaxer movement for the last ten years. Science seems to indicate (by MRI or CAT scan studies) that a child's brain can show signs of autism long before there's any noticeable behavioral changes so do I buy that in some cases a child may be developing autism but not showing signs and a round of multiple vaccinations either caused it or sped it up? I honestly don't know but I'm reasonably sure that vaccinations by themselves don't outright cause autism.

Re:Thought police?

[jeff4747]

but there are plenty of families (mothers and fathers) interviewed saying "My kid was normal, walking and talking and then he got 5 vaccinations at once and two weeks later he stopped talking and was diagnosed with autism"

No there aren't.

First, the schedule doesn't include "5 vaccines at once" at that age....in fact, the largest burst of vaccines are at birth, which means if this theory was correct, they couldn't have been walking and talking normally because of all the damage caused by vaccines.

Second, autism can not be diagnosed in the extremely young, because the symptoms are not possible to detect - you can't tell that the kid was walking and talking when they can't walk or talk yet. Almost every "normal" two-year-old displays symptoms for autism. That's where phases like "terrible twos" comes from. What makes it autism is when they're still displaying those symptoms at age 4.

Last, the people saying this have been primed by the grifters to ignore the reality of childhood development and look only at vaccines, in order to sell them "cures".

Science seems to indicate (by MRI or CAT scan studies) that a child's brain can show signs of autism long before there's any noticeable behavioral changes so do I buy that in some cases a child may be developing autism but not showing signs

It's not some cases. It is every. single. case.

Re:Flat Earther IQs average

[religionofpeas]

I don't trust any of the fact given that I can't proved myself.

But you can easily prove yourself that the Earth is round, using nothing more than common household items.

How many...

[Kreplock]

serious flat earthers are there? I doubt it is statistically significant. Lump 'em with the majick-underwear-wearing Mormons, Satanists, and other eccentrics. Not a big deal.

Re:'Flat Earth' was set up by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve a punch on the nose from Buzz Aldrin.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you call two-dimensional squares "flat, one-dimensional lines"?

That depends. Do they lack tits and any hint of personality?

Question

[krray]

One question that I've never gotten a good answer to and simply don't understand: WHAT MEANS TO AN END?

Meaning -- a true flat earther believes that ALL the governments of the world along with scientists, media, etc ... and ALL trying to make us believe the world is round.

Ok ... what means to an end? WHY would they do this? HOW do they benefit from hiding the FLAT truth to you?

Makes so sense. Oh, and the world is round. Ish.

Re:Question

[ilsaloving]

Your first mistake is that their argument is rational to begin with. If they were being rational, they wouldn't believe such idiocy in the first place.

Re:Question

[Livius]

Because the extraordinary scope of the conspiracy makes knowing the "truth" that much more of an achievement, and fighting the "misinformation" that much more noble.

Note the conspiracy is constructed to suit their "belief", not to have a constructive purpose of its own.

Re:Question

[jeff4747]

Group 1: Religious literalism taken to an extreme. They believe the big conspiracy is to move us away from God so that the evil cabal can steal our souls. So, Earth is round to weaken everyone's belief and move forward on their sinister plan.

Group 2: They just wanna believe there's massive conspiracies out there. It's a lot easier to accept that there are massive shadowy cabals doing all the evil in the world than to deal with the horrific reality that we are just really that bad to each other, frequently for stupid reasons.

Group 3: They believe they are smarter than everyone else, and we sheep just don't understand the subject matter like they do. This is common among moon landing hoaxers, who have.....interesting theories on astrophysics that they claim makes landing on the moon impossible. My favorite is the guy who thinks time slows down the further you get from Earth, so the astronauts would have died due to lack of blood circulation as their hearts beat slower. He thinks he understands temporal relativity, and thus he's found a 'gotcha'. But he's just an illustration of Dunning-Kruger.

Re:what is the problem?

[thegarbz]

people can't believe in what they want?

People are free to believe anything they want until their belief starts having an impact on others. Frankly we should form lists of people for the sake of the species. You believe the earth is flat? You're on the list. You're on the list? You don't get to vote or have your opinion heard on anything that has an impact on the life of someone else.

Relativity of Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I have found this essay confounds Flat-Earthers.

The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov at https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Cancer? More like the literal apocalypse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bees dying out is no joke!
It would literally cause mass-starvation, entire ecosystems coming down, and as a result an avalance of catastrophic changes, and mass-riots, and resource wars as a result.

No, the literal devil would not rise from hell to bring fire and sulphur... but it wouldn't be far enough from it for comfort.

And hell, we might still manage to turn the athmosphere back to before-trees ogygen-poor... with a transitioning phase of fire and sulphur in-between ... if that pollution and global waming thing is kept going. We already had more than one leader that could play the role of he devil too.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth is not flat from the point of view of the 4th spatial dimension. It's still a mostly-sphere shape,

It is a Hypersphere.

Re:what is the problem?

[BKDotCom]

why is that in this era that we are living in, people can't believe in what they want?

https://xkcd.com/154/

Why Bother Trying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Believing the earth is flat is no different than believing in Astrology.

No one is harmed.

Insisting that they believe what you believe is kind of creepy.

Re: Why Bother Trying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is harmed until they try to use their cracked out theories to build rockets

Don't blame youtube

[fustakrakich]

I know it goes against popular opinion, but you're supposed to blame the idiot believers.

That's Not Critical Thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

A critical thinker has to be able to do both: list the pro- and the counter-arguments and weigh them against each other.

That's all fine and dandy. But nothing in your post actually defines critical thinking. The keyword here is critical. Which is not about making up lists of arguments and explanations - anybody can do that. Its about judging the quality of those arguments. Which for most people means evaluating the source of the argument, the qualifications and trustworthiness of the people making the arguments as well as things like logical consistency (of both the argument and the people making the argument). The fact is, truth is NOT self-evident and anyone who tells you that probably doesn't want you to critically evaluate them.

99% of the time we are not experts in the topics being debated, so we are left with critical evaluations of arguments based on external factors. Understanding how and why we evaluate those factors is central to critical thinking.

Media literacy, in particular, is a key component of critical thinking in the internet era. The reason youtube is causing a rise in people believing in conspiracy theories like a flat-earth is because youtube is designed to maximize "engagement" and conspiracy theories are like crack for the unsophisticated - especially those who feel dis-empowered in their lives (and who doesn't feel that way at least some times?) So youtube's algorithms reward ($$$) people who make conspiracy theory videos, which induces the creation of even more conspiracy theory videos.

In other words, the people making videos for youtube have strong incentives to be manipulative and completely dishonest because that's what youtube's algorithm rewards. The people consuming those videos aren't thinking about how those rewards degrade the trustworthiness of the video makers. Fundamentally its all a grift. A billion dollar grift. Its also the same business model as talk radio which has been lucrative AF for grifters too.

Re:That's Not Critical Thinking

[Areyoukiddingme]

That's all fine and dandy. But nothing in your post actually defines critical thinking. The keyword here is critical. Which is not about making up lists of arguments and explanations - anybody can do that. Its about judging the quality of those arguments. Which for most people means evaluating the source of the argument, the qualifications and trustworthiness of the people making the arguments as well as things like logical consistency (of both the argument and the people making the argument). The fact is, truth is NOT self-evident and anyone who tells you that probably doesn't want you to critically evaluate them.

99% of the time we are not experts in the topics being debated, so we are left with critical evaluations of arguments based on external factors. Understanding how and why we evaluate those factors is central to critical thinking.

While all of that is true, in this particular case, any competent carpenter can build a reasonable Foucault pendulum in their backyard. Then again, any incompetent conspiracy theorist can "explain" its behavior by claiming the flat Earth rotates, so I guess that doesn't help the true lunatics.

Re:That's Not Critical Thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

The greatest failure of critical thinking that I see in the world today is the failure to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Clue: if a statement contains, or even implies, any of the words "should", "ought", "right", "good", "proper", "great", "noble", "moral", "virtuous", "fair", "just" - all of those are markers for opinion. There is no point in trying to prove or disprove them, they don't work like that.

If everyone could just keep that in mind, the world would be a less shouty place.

Re:That's Not Critical Thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

While all of that is true, in this particular case, any competent carpenter can build a reasonable Foucault pendulum in their backyard.

LOL. These people want to believe in conspiracies, they aren't going to all that effort to ruin it.

Never blame a book for the fool's take

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube may be the medium, but a population of of credulous morons is to blame here, no matter how you spin it.

Re:maybe people think the earth is flat

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer took on Bill Maher (HBO) last week and The Verge (Vox Media) this week! who will he take on next week?!

In other news

[aod7br7932]

In other news, "Language is responsible for 100% of lie telling".

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[ripvlan]

Do they take Planes across the Plane to attend the conference held on the Plains?

I've always been impressed that they believe the flat-earth exists in 3-D. Airplanes travel on this 2-D surface and that water-droplets form balls - but that earth itself is not a ball. When they look at other Planets -- are they all Flat too?

Sorry I'm a bit ignorant on their belief system. Are the Sun, Moon, Jupiter (and moons) all Discs as well? If not -- how come earth is the odd-ball? (get it... odd ball...)

I dare whoever did this

[themusicgod1]

To use the same methodology on TV. I bet you'll find TV lead to all kinds of wacky things, like the Iraq war.

Round them all up

[Rick Schumann]

I'm getting tired of how idiotic our species can be.
Round up all the 'flat Earthers' into a secure facility. Screen them for the ones that are 'claiming' to believe it for purely entertainment or trolling purposes, give them a stern warning to discontinue that activity and release them. The 'true believers' stay and are treated for their delusion(s) (no doubt they have actual treatable mental/emotional illnesses); release the ones that respond to treatment, lock away the 'incorrigibles' who are too ill to grasp actual truth and actual reality.

Maybe we do the same with anti-vaxxers.

I'm only about 51% serious about the above. But I think hard about it.

Re:Round them all up

[jeff4747]

Screen them for the ones that are 'claiming' to believe it for purely entertainment or trolling purposes, give them a stern warning to discontinue that activity and release them.

Nah. Leave them to experience the consequences of their actions.

Youtube is pushing this flat earth crap.

[oogoliegoogolie]

Youtube pushes these face-science clickbait videos on to viewers.

Watch videos of real science or space exploration like Saturn V launches, Space Shuttle launches, videos of the Cassini, Voyager, Curiosity missions, Hubble or any astronomical topic and the "suggested video" panel is filled with flat earth, hollow earth, donut earth, Apollo was faked, face on mars cover-up, Elvis was the first reptilian alien videos with tens of millions of views.

Seriously, it's 2019 and the internet is making people more stupid or at least more ignorant today than people were a century ago. People are losing their ability use common-sense, objective reasoning, and critical thinking.

Where's the edge?

[mnemotronic]

Take me to the edge.

There's a song in there somewhere, and I mean a good one; not the one from Magnum.

Re:Where's the edge?

[jeff4747]

Evil NASA patrols the ice wall and prevents anyone from reaching it.

Also, passengers in aircraft that supposedly fly past the edge are sedated via chemicals pumped into the cabin so that they do not know that they flew the long way around.

Re:Where's the edge?

[mnemotronic]

Evil NASA patrols the ice wall and prevents anyone from reaching it ...

Ha! I knew blue-fire breathing dragons and a legion of un-dead would somehow be involved. Has HBO or George R Maten threatened to sue the flatlanders for infringing on GOT story?

Critical Thinking Skills

[sdinfoserv]

This is not just a "you tube" problem, we've entered a period of anti-intellectual tribalism. It's not just "flat eathers", we have an increase in "climate change deniers", Washington State declared a measles emergency - from anti-vaxers.. We have FauxNoise, Breitbart and Alex Jones constantly spouting "conspiracy" and "deep state" nonsense. Scientists are vilified and personally attacked - . Many can no longer differentiate what they like or what the tribe mentality is vs VS fact and truth.

Re:Critical Thinking Skills

[mea_culpa]

And yet you sound just like them.

I don't think it's existential fear

[rsilvergun]

It's because religion is on the decline and they're seeking alternate communities that accept members without preconditions.

As a nerd I've engaged in and witnessed this behavior many a time. Nerds and weirdos have a hard time making friends and keeping them. Folks don't think much about what it really means to have "poor social skills". It means you constantly blurt out the wrong thing and make folks around you uncomfortable.

So you need a community that's not likely to kick you to the curb. The easiest way to find that is to look for a community under attack from outside. New members are an asset not to be discarded. The gun community does this too. Pipe clubs too.

There's also a desire to have something bigger than yourself to believe in. Not out of fear, but out of wonder. Folks like to think the world has mysteries that only they and their friends solved. That's a big part of religion, and as Church attendance declines in the wake of scandals folks are turning to new age crap like Goop and conspiracy theories to scratch that itch.

Youtube is not the problem...

[blunte]

The problem is a growing psychological behavior where people tend to select the option that fits their brain decision patterns. I'm not a neuroscientist, so I don't have the correct term for this. But it's the same mentality that compels people (in the US, statistically older, less educated) to agree with a certain anti-scientific answer. Basically it's the behavior that causes people to reject published science for peer-shared hoaxes and, dare I use the horrid term, "fake news".

All youtube does is deliver video content (ignoring their censorship responsibilities or actions). Point is, trolls or people will ill intent or just simply morons publish videos of disinformation, and unfortunately simple-minded people latch on to those ideas - especially if they think their enemies (elitist educated (liberals)) believe in the opposing ideas).

Re:Youtube is not the problem...

[jeff4747]

YouTube's algorithm is the problem. It reinforces these beliefs by showing video after video from the crank side of the subject. Watching the scientifically-proven side will also cause videos from the cranks to come up on your feed.

Which makes the crap seem more trustworthy than it actually is.

To bring it back to Slashdot, it's yelling "THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS" enough times that Picard sees 5 lights.

Re:what is the problem?

[ChesterRafoon]

Nice VAX 11/780 reference there. Indeed a great machine back in the day, first computer I was ever paid to manage.

Do they fear sea levels rising, or falling

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there a fear of climate change, causing the seas to fall off the edge of the disc and onto the turtles below?

Mirror Mirror

[SuperKendall]

You're asserting what they're trying to do, again out of your own ignorance

Aren't you just asserting what they are trying to do without any proof of your own?....

Flat earthers bleating on about their conspiracy, whether troll or idiot, are still trying to convert and at the very least firm up the faith

Incorrect, the two kind of people have goals that are diametrically opposed.

Re: Mirror Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because Holocaust deniers who are just trolling are less offensive than the "true" Holocaust deniers?

Re:Mirror Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect, the two kind of people have goals that are diametrically opposed.

Awwww, look at you trying to rationalize your shithood.

Super Ken Doll: Serious Nazi or Fake Nazi?

Sartre had your ilk nailed:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

— Jean Paul-Sartre
Anti-Semite and Jew [1944]

Where were you when I fixed the foundations?

[Anonymous Coward]

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Sound of Silence

Eve answered: The serpent deceived me, and I ate

[Anonymous Coward]

therefore scientific thinking should be rejected.

Exactly so. This is by design of God. Energeian Planes.

It's obvious that the Earth is concave.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that the Earth is concave.

Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever

[Anonymous Coward]

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Sound of Silence
Losing my religion

Energeian Planes.

An interesting perspective: relativity of wrong

[Woeful Countenance]

Isaac Asimov wrote an essay called "The Relativity of Wrong". (One of several links thereto.)

One thing Asimov says is, "... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

He then goes on to note that the Earth actually is flat, to a reasonable approximation, over short distances. He also notes several observations explained by the assumption that the Earth is (nearly) spherical but that are not explained by a flat Earth.

Are there really people who believe the International Space Station is all just faked? For what purpose? Not to mention other planets, Kepler's laws, Newton's laws, and GPS.

Re:An interesting perspective: relativity of wrong

[jeff4747]

Not to mention other planets

Flat Earthers believe that the other planets and the sun are round. Only the Earth is flat. Because reasons.

Kepler's laws, Newton's laws, and GPS.

Their expertise with these tends to consist of "the magic box tells me when to turn".

Well when you think about it..

[nanospook]

All of the videos are flat

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[phantomfive]

Do you call two-dimensional squares "flat, one-dimensional lines"?

I call them flat, two-dimensional squares.

Hansen's 1988 paper was spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

It got a figure that led to a 3.4C per doubling CO2e when it would have been precisely equal if it had a 3.2C per doubling. THAT is how close it was.

That you pretend, and yes, I mean PRETEND, that your denier buddies are right by proclaiming the predictions wrong, Hansen's 88 paper proves you are utterly clueless and wrong on your beliefs.

Begging for pity much???

[Anonymous Coward]

When did you morons agree with ANYTHING from the IPCC??? When you whine piteously "If you don't agree with EVERYTHING!!!" you are a complete and utter asshole. You don't agree the trend, you don't agree the feedbacks, you refuse the predictions, you insist on fantasies of what is predicted as strawmen, and you swallow every claim against it.

The opposite of that

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it the wrong way around. Google's algorithms currently actively promote a way for youtubers to make money making conspiracy and nut job videos. And it's easy money because the algorithms end up targeting people who are ignorant and/or don't think clearly. That is the thing that Google should suppress (i.e. its own anti-user scam promotion algorithm), not ideas as such, no matter how fruity.

Can we...

[Anonymous Coward]

...as intelligent people, just send these morons, and their brethren, the anti-vaxxers, to a deserted island all by themselves?

Profit over Truth

[Prien715]

Google's algorithms attempt to optimize "engagement", which is quite different from truth. The things we find engaging are those which trigger the ancient reptilian parts of our brains into anger, fight-or-flight and above all turn off the pre-frontal cortex responsible for executive function and reasoning. Google's entire existence was based on being better at curating search results than Hotbot, Altavista, or Yahoo. It will continue to curate. The question becomes "How does one curate results?" is much like "What menu items should our cafeteria offer?". If Google were a cafeteria, they would offer nothing but junk food and liquor as choices, whine about nutrition -- as this would be the most profitable course. You throw "AI" or "Machine Learning" into optimization these problems and they'll find the same unhealthy optimizations as a human would while absolving the engineers of blame because "a computer did it".

Sigh....

[Anonymous Coward]

"YouTube To Blame For Rise in Flat Earth Believers"

"While Landrum didn't explicitly blame YouTube"

Jesus fscking Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

Landrum interviewed 30 people who attended one flat Earth convention and found that all but one became flat Earthers after watching videos on YouTube.

Forget people who believe the Earth is flat -- where the fsck does Slashdot get all the commenters who believe interviewing 30 people at a convention is a fscking study! I have more hope for the world with a small number of people who think the Earth is flat than with all the people in the comments section who skipped right over the "interviewing 30 people" is a study to jump right into ragging on Flat Earthers.

Maybe if the commenters paid more attention to what's actually happening, we wouldn't be getting these sh*t sandwich "social science studies" that are barely social, not science, and the polar opposite of a study on a daily basis.

Blame Google and Youtube...

[mschaffer]

Sure, blame Google and Youtube. It's like blaming a library for ignorance.

Re:Slashdot is fake news; 1939 Germany is Victorio

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that you would be one of the first people sent to the camp.

The new powers would flag you as a homosexual and take you out. Remember the Brown Shirts? There is a target on your dick.

Re:Flat Earther IQs average

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust any of the fact given that I can't proved myself.

But you can easily prove yourself that the Earth is round, using nothing more than common household items.

Like a globe.

Neigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Horsey. The word you were looking for was "horsey".

Re:Neigh

[Ol Olsoc]

Horsey. The word you were looking for was "horsey".

I think the Horsey was for the strippers..

Oh gar, I'm going to hell..........

Re:what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

> That such beliefs are not harmful to society is not true.

Case in point: Mike Pence beliefs that his god has told him he will be President of the US. He also believes that the Rapture will be soon. When Trump is impeached or otherwise removed he will have achieved the first and will do everything he can to bring on the latter.

This is why he is trying to get a war with Iran and probably with North Korea. It will start to fulfil his dreams.

fukkin MORANS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a negative, ya fucking MORAN. You described that photo. A description is not an explantion.

Who the hell are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

He does, but so do you. You'll both also fail to admit when you're wrong, because you both have demonstrated on here multiple times, that what you're really after is the last word. You weren't even in this conversation chain, but he's pissed you off from another thread and you thought you'd take a pot shot at that covetted last word.

Both of you are useless tools and useful idiots at the same time. I'm just terribly saddened Schroedinger isn't here to study this...and bury his dead cat.

Should have also checked rise of Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

When you defend flat earthers as just trolling people, is that not what Demonrats specialize in?

put that fucking thing AWAY

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, that's not the only thing that's showing....your Bigotry is hanging out. Are you trying to get the rabid mob of "homofags" you hate so much to suck it or something?

Theory EVOLVED(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

They fixed that. You can now have 'round Earth cruises because they changed the shape of flat Earth. It is now a polar map projection with north at the center. You cannot cross that area because of some unknown reasons, so when you sail "around" it, you're just following a cricular line (oh I love that contradiction) like a record player needle in a song groove. The Sun, Moon, and everything else "rotates" around us by following a similar line that drifts between the 2 tropics lattitudes. I haven't figured out yet how the North Pole blocks the sun so it can be night on the opposite side, but then again, that's what I get for trying to translate crazy.

Even if I think the earth is flat...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I am not going to to anything about it. I will not live my life different that when I thought the earth was flat.
Some people seems to think that Flatearthers is going to do something terrible.
Let me believe what I want.

The earth is roound and flat like a pizza, and the crust is antarctica, which is a wall, so you cant fall over the egde.

It's about Christianity

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I "think they think" since it's my job to figure out if crazy fuckers are actually saying useful things that they can't express. I'll copy what I wrote several threads up to address how they can fly a plane across the plane to the plain:

You can now have 'round Earth cruises because they changed the shape of flat Earth. It is now a polar map projection with north at the center. You cannot cross that area because of some unknown reasons, so when you sail "around" it, you're just following a cricular line (oh I love that contradiction) like a record player needle in a song groove. The Sun, Moon, and everything else "rotates" around us by following a similar line that drifts between the 2 tropics lattitudes. I haven't figured out yet how the North Pole blocks the sun so it can be night on the opposite side, but then again, that's what I get for trying to translate crazy.

There's some fancy maps if you can't see what I'm trying to describe. It's preposterous, but whatever. Now to answer about "everything else". Everything else is spherical. It's all exactly like you see it so convientiently it can't be used to prove or disprove anything. This whole flat earth nonsense seems to be rooted in christianity, specifically Genesis and any mention of "Firmament". The thought is we ARE different than everything else cause god made us to be special and be treated specially. I'm not religious so it makes zero sense since faith doesn't follow logic rules. It just "clicks" for the zealots. If you see videos talking about "sun simulators" then that WAS something completely different. Now things are evolving every day. The fringe folks are now taking ANY weird science and claiming it's part of thiers. Now they've sucked in aether physics, electric universe, and "the Jews", none of which care what shape the Earth is.

After studying this crap in detail for the last 10 years, I am almost certain it's all about proving Christianity "right". All the videos, all the books, everything topic-related leads back to the Firmament. Even Nikola Tesla believed that shit. Einstein was all about firmaments, too, for decades until repeatedly failing to find the aether so he scrapped all the "old" thinking and we got relativity. Now why do I think this? Ask an FE why it would matter if we're on a sphere, disc, donut, oblate spheroid, or whatever shape. In general, it wouldn't. We'd still fly planes, use GPS, and watch ships fall off the edge (I mean, sink below the horizon) like we always have. BUT if those wiley xstians managed to find something- ANYTHING- to prove the bible and yaweh/jehova were real, then they could make a case that they have a mandate to institue theocracy worldwide. Gotta fire up those old Crusades again. And also remember the devout fanatics revel in projection. Why do you think they're always freaking out about a "New World Order"? They're just worried it won't be theirs! They think it's Satan's NWO. They DO love them a one world gov. They call it "Heaven" in their texts.

He got it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I been (badly) trying to tell people this for years. Watch the videos, read the books, listen to the speakers. What ALWAYS pops up? The fucking Firmament. If the xstians can prove any part of the bible as "true" then they'll think they have a godly mandate to institue a worldwide theocracy. We all know they project more than the sun. Why do you think they're always freaking out about the "New World Order"? They want one, they just worry it won't be thiers.

Re:'Flat Earth' was set up by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

Buzz was a fervant believer in aliens, dumbass.

Trolls or mentally ill....

[Brad1138]

I have been saying for a while, FEers are 1 of 2 things. Either a troll, or someone with mental issues, there is no 3rd option.

What exactly is "mainstream" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality he just dismisses anything mainstream

in reality "mainstream" does not necessarily mean "the truth"

Re:What exactly is "mainstream" ?

[Sique]

But also not "the not true". It's mainstream. You can believe it. You can doubt it. Both positions are equally easy and don't need any thinking.

Actually dissecting which parts of mainstream knowledge is true (for a workable version of true) and which are not, is tedious work, and no single person will manage it during their lifetime completely.

Re:'Flat Earth' was set up by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

> Buzz was a fervant believer in aliens, dumbass.

Was..?

Re:Can't believe someone is so stupid

[aliquis]

Both people modded it down as a joke/insightful knowledge or what?
https://pasteboard.co/I1ThjHt....

I doubt everyone gets that lots of flat earthers are just joking. I'm also pretty sure not everyone take it for granted that there's something done with "science" done by women. I kinda appreciate the joke in moderating it redundant but I don't feel the comment is.

Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a

[RespekMyAthorati]

Are the Sun, Moon, Jupiter (and moons) all Discs as well?

Oh come on.
Everybody knows that they are just pictures on the Celestial Sphere.