Excellent Reads

1575 readers

120 users here now

Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.

Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.

Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.

Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.

Rules:

Common Sense. Civility, etc.
Server rules.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Flat-Earth theory – Why such views are increasingly taking hold and how the physics community should best respond (physicsworld.com)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://archive.ph/vEoA7

The idea that the Earth is a sphere was all but settled by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (384–322 BC), who obtained empirical evidence after travelling to Egypt and seeing new constellations of stars. Eratosthenes, in the third century BC, became the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Islamic scholars made further advanced measurements from about the 9th century AD onwards, while European navigators circled the Earth in the 16th century. Images from space were final proof, if any were needed.

Today’s flat-Earth believers are not, though, the first to doubt what seems unquestionable. The notion of a flat Earth initially resurfaced in the 1800s as a backlash to scientific progress, especially among those who wished to return to biblical literalism. Perhaps the most famous proponent was the British writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). He proposed the Earth is a flat immovable disc, centred at the North Pole, with Antarctica replaced by an ice wall at the disc’s outer boundary.

The International Flat Earth Research Society, which was set up in 1956 by Samuel Shenton, a signwriter living in Dover, UK, was regarded by many people as merely a symbol of British eccentricity – amusing and of little consequence. But in the early 2000s, with the Internet now a well-established vehicle for off-beat views, the idea began to bubble up again, mostly in the US. Discussions sprouted in online forums, the Flat Earth Society was relaunched in October 2009 and the annual flat-Earth conference began in earnest.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (22 children)

An interesting read, thx.

Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe (Lee McIntyre, Boston University)

This sums it up perfectly, for me. And not just for those flat-earthers. They don't want to discuss their ideas, they want to be right. There is no way we can have a sincere debate with any 'believer' (of whatever).

And why should we? Why should we do the work to prove them wrong knowing they will blissfully ignore any demonstration that does not end in 'omfg! You were right all the time! The Earth is indeed flat, and hollow, and reptilians are our true overlords, and the only time NASA send anyone to the moon is when they were all high!'

Why not let them do all the work themselves, instead? They seem to be so willing. I would even happily see some public money used to fund their 'space exploration' probes if I did not know for sure that the instant their stupid ideas would be proven wrong by their very own probe, the fact that any public money would have been involved in making it, they would argue it's one more irrefutable proof of the conspiracy against their (unshaken and unshakable) truth.

Imho, the real issues is not those people believing their moronic ideas. There always have been a bunch like them. Flat-earthers, doomsday believers, anti-vax, conspirationists of every single type you can imagine, and so on. We should be fine with them holding to their believes. Why? Because they should not matter, they should remain the statistically insignificant minority they are, no matter how loud. Also, we should not be afraid to call them for who they are.

Have we really become afraid of calling them by their name? Amusing morons at times, but morons nonetheless, and shameless assholes for those among them that take advantage of those people's gullibility for their own personal profit.

Have we become that fragile ourselves that we're afraid to simply ignore them when we're not frankly laughing out loud at their 'theories'? Because if we have, that bunch of eccentrics and their theories, is certainly not the issue I would worry about. We are.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Because they should not matter, they should remain the statistically insignificant minority they are, no matter how loud.

I think the problem is, they have become far more than a 'statistically insignificant minority'. Anti-intellectualism is becoming more rampant at a horrifying speed

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I think the problem is, they have become far more than a ‘statistically insignificant minority’. Anti-intellectualism is becoming more rampant at a horrifying speed

I do wonder if we have any data regarding that? I mean isn't it also, next to this quick rise of proud idiocy I'm not denying, a lot more noise made by them, and around them? Say, for example, by our dear media willing to do their worst in order to sell more paper/get more page views?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Not specifically flat Earthers, but there's a ton of data about the increase of anti-vaxxers as compared to in the past. Seems pretty undeniable that their numbers and influence have gone up, the question is what we can do about it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 days ago

Isnt what you are doing by dismissing flat earth believers anti-intellectualism? You are dismissing the chance they are intelligent enough to change their mind.

load more comments (18 replies)