Slashdot Mirror


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."

234 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!

    5. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Z80a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > 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.

    13. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Jahta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    14. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by cs96and · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    18. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      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

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    19. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      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?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    22. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      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.")

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    24. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    27. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    28. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

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

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    29. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      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.

    30. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    31. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    32. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Johny+Drama · · Score: 1

      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.

    33. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      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.

    34. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      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.

    35. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    36. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    37. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      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”.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    39. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    40. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    41. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Livius · · Score: 2

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

    42. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      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.

    43. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      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.

    44. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    45. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    46. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Jahta · · Score: 1

      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.

    47. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    48. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Many.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    49. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Harinezumi · · Score: 1

      "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."

    50. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    51. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

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

    52. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      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?

    53. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 2

      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.

    54. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      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.

    55. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by richpoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    56. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 2

      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.

    57. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

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

    58. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      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?

    59. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      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.

    60. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      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!

    61. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    62. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

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

    63. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      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.)

    64. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    65. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      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.

    66. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

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

    67. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      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.

    68. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    69. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You just like to argue.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    70. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    71. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    72. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    73. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    74. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    75. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    76. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    77. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by walllaby · · Score: 1

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

    78. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      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 :-)

    79. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      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.

    80. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

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

    81. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      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.

    82. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      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.

    83. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by astrofurter · · Score: 2

      "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.

    84. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      +1 observant

    85. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      How's that Invisible Skyhook working out for you?

    86. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    87. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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?).

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    88. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    89. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Can god even have free will?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    90. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    91. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    92. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      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?*

    93. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Livius · · Score: 1

      How many people genuinely believe

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

    94. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

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

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

    95. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

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

      I can't afford to do that.

    96. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      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.

    97. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      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.

    98. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by gnick · · Score: 1

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

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    99. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    100. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Can god even have free will?

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

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    101. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

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

      Wel played sir. Well played indeed.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    102. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    103. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      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.

    104. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      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.

    105. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      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.

    106. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      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.

    107. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1
      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?

    108. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      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.

    109. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      All FAKE!

    110. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      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.

    111. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    112. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      >> 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.

    113. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      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.

    114. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    115. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      >> 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

    116. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      " 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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    117. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      " 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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    118. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      You are your brain. I am my consciousness.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  2. "Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up all by phonewebcam · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..over the globe"

    We all saw what you did there.

  3. Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re: Trolls by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Trolls by spazmonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Trolls by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Trolls by geantvert · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re: Trolls by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      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."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:Trolls by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    7. Re:Trolls by Megol · · Score: 1

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

    8. Re:Trolls by r2kordmaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    9. Re: Trolls by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Trolls by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Trolls by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re: Trolls by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Trolls by iwbcman · · Score: 1


      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 ;)

    14. Re: Trolls by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That very much depends on how they crash.

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

    15. Re:Trolls by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Trolls by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:Trolls by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Trolls by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      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.

  4. Democracy was a nice dream by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by swillden · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by tomhath · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Re:You don't really know anything by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    [($)]
  6. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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....

  7. Flat Earther Here by wolfheart111 · · Score: 2

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

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Flat Earther Here by mentil · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Flat Earther Here by abies · · Score: 1

      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).

    3. Re:Flat Earther Here by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      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?

  8. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

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

  9. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  10. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by Opportunist · · Score: 2

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Youtube is for illiterate people by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Youtube is for illiterate people by Oligonicella · · Score: 1
  12. Re:A question to more experienced folks here: by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. i can tell you how to fix that by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:i can tell you how to fix that by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, a tetrahedron.

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

    2. Re:i can tell you how to fix that by Eubeleus · · Score: 1

      I thought you were dead, Time Cube guy!

  14. Re:and they just went on record they are elminatin by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. So What? by BBF_BBF · · Score: 1

    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.

  16. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  17. Can't keep the narratives straight by ckatko · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Can't keep the narratives straight by DogDude · · Score: 1

      See the post immediately above yours.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  18. Don't worry... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  19. Re:what is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem is that ignorant people vote.

  20. Re:what is the problem? by sheramil · · Score: 2, Funny

    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).

  21. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Nice.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  22. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    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.

  23. The article headline is highly misleading by kgroombr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The article headline is highly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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".

    2. Re:The article headline is highly misleading by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  24. Slashdot Headlines by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  25. I guess people forget about books and magazines by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  26. A prelude to censorship by kbaud · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:A prelude to censorship by nucrash · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Place something witty here
  27. Nothing you can do. by goodgame · · Score: 2

    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.

  28. Slashdot is flat? by NaughtyNimitz · · Score: 1

    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?

  29. The study is flawed then. by Chas · · Score: 1

    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).

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  30. lmao by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

  31. Re:A question to more experienced folks here: by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  32. Re:And speaking of pulling people's chains by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  33. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    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"?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  34. Thought police? by NormAtHome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Thought police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Thought police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Thought police? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      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?

    4. Re:Thought police? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Thought police? by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Thought police? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      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.

  35. Re:Flat Earther IQs average by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    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.

  36. How many... by Kreplock · · Score: 1

    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.

  37. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

  38. Question by krray · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Question by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Question by Livius · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Question by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      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.

  39. Re:what is the problem? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    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.

  40. Re:what is the problem? by BKDotCom · · Score: 1

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

    https://xkcd.com/154/

  41. Don't blame youtube by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  42. That's Not Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That's Not Critical Thinking by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      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.

  43. In other news by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

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

  44. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by ripvlan · · Score: 2

    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...)

  45. Re:A question to more experienced folks here: by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  46. I dare whoever did this by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  47. Round them all up by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Round them all up by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      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.

  48. Youtube is pushing this flat earth crap. by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

    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.

  49. Where's the edge? by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

    Take me to the edge.

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

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Where's the edge? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Where's the edge? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  50. Critical Thinking Skills by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  51. Re:No, you just ASSERTED they are not idiots by Cito · · Score: 1

    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

  52. I don't think it's existential fear by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  53. Youtube is not the problem... by blunte · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:Youtube is not the problem... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      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.

  54. Re:what is the problem? by ChesterRafoon · · Score: 2

    Nice VAX 11/780 reference there. Indeed a great machine back in the day, first computer I was ever paid to manage.

  55. Re:A question to more experienced folks here: by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    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.”

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  56. Mirror Mirror by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  57. An interesting perspective: relativity of wrong by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:An interesting perspective: relativity of wrong by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      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".

  58. Well when you think about it.. by nanospook · · Score: 1

    All of the videos are flat

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  59. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by phantomfive · · Score: 1

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

    I call them flat, two-dimensional squares.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  60. Profit over Truth by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    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".

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  61. Blame Google and Youtube... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Sure, blame Google and Youtube. It's like blaming a library for ignorance.

  62. Trolls or mentally ill.... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  63. Re:What exactly is "mainstream" ? by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  64. Re:Can't believe someone is so stupid by aliquis · · Score: 1

    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.

  65. Re:Can't fix stupid by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

    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.

  66. Re:Neigh by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Horsey. The word you were looking for was "horsey".

    I think the Horsey was for the strippers..

    Oh gar, I'm going to hell..........

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  67. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    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.