geo wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 7:17 pm

LanDroid wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 2:53 pm Another aspect I noticed from politics is the very carefully curated bizarre personal opinion. Believing they came up with a wild theory all on their own by "doing their own research," their internal facts must be delicately cared for, soothed, and protected from attack.

At first glance belief in a flat earth belief seems completely bonkers. And of course it is! But then we see there's a very close correlation between flat earth belief and a literal interpretation of the Bible, and it starts to make sense. And that's the motivation for perhaps most flat-earthers. If you want to believe in the Great Flood and that God created humans a few thousand years ago and that evolution is false, you've already rejected pretty much all of modern science. The door is wide open for a flat earth.

There are probably many other reasons people like the idea of a flat earth. They simply don't understand science enough to know how ridiculous the idea is. (See Robert's previous post about the Dunning-Kruger effect). Or they just like conspiracy theories in general. But for most flat-earthers, a flat earth goes hand in hand with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/arch ... on/622908/

That's what I've seen as well. The flat earthers are mostly motivated by religion.

Murmur wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:48 pm

At first glance belief in a flat earth belief seems completely bonkers. And of course it is! But then we see there's a very close correlation between flat earth belief and a literal interpretation of the Bible, and it starts to make sense. And that's the motivation for perhaps most flat-earthers. If you want to believe in the Great Flood and that God created humans a few thousand years ago and that evolution is false, you've already rejected pretty much all of modern science. The door is wide open for a flat earth.

There are probably many other reasons people like the idea of a flat earth. They simply don't understand science enough to know how ridiculous the idea is. (See Robert's previous post about the Dunning-Kruger effect). Or they just like conspiracy theories in general. But for most flat-earthers, a flat earth goes hand in hand with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/arch ... on/622908/

That's what I've seen as well. The flat earthers are mostly motivated by religion.

I recently showed a film from YouTube (origin BBC, if I remember right) about Flat Earthers. I was substituting in a class on "Theory of Knowledge". For Theory of Knowledge (TOK) purposes it brilliantly illustrates both the scientific method and the opposite, the pursuit of confirmation bias.

The FEers had concocted two different experiments to show that the earth really was flat. Both gave the "wrong" answer (surprise!) that instead the earth is curved. They were diligently working away to figure out what they had done wrong, or what factor they had left out, etc. It reminded me strongly of the "Creation Institute" in the way every refutation was rejected out of hand.

The film did a good job of showing how social reinforcement increased the commitment of the true believers to their theory. It does seem to be true that Flat Earth believers are biblical literalists, but, at least according to the film, that is a minor, secondary aspect. Rather I think both views are appealing to a certain kind of mind that wants to disbelieve sophisticated "theoretical" knowledge and to believe "practical" versions of life. I mean really, you don't think your great-great-grandmother was a monkey, do you?

I was thinking about this subject a little bit recently. Wouldn't the easiest way to prove that the Earth is flat be to simply go high up in the air, in a hot air balloon, for example, and use a powerful telescope to look at some far away land? For example, I live in New York state. If I go high enough, and stay above New York, with a strong enough telescope I should be able to see the Eiffel Tower, the Burj Khalifa, the Pyramids of Giza, and the Sydney Opera House.

geo wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 7:17 pm correlation between flat earth belief and a literal interpretation of the Bible, and it starts to make sense. And that's the motivation for perhaps most flat-earthers.

The traditional triple decker universe with hell below and heaven above us directly implies a flat earth theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JxyT0edT6c

The two things that destroy the idea of a flat earth is the Foucault Pendulum (above link) the Coriolis Effect (below link):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIyBpi7B-dE

The third thing that destroys the flat earth idea is celestial navigation. For example, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, and want to know your latitude, you take your sextant and measure the angle of elevation for Polaris. Whatever the angle is, say, 45 degrees, then you are on the 45th latitude. No matter what the angle of Polaris is, it will be the same latitude. That cannot happen on a flat earth. Impossible. Below the Equator, we cannot sight Polaris because it is now below the horizon--but on a flat earth Polaris should still be visible because there is no horizon only a convergent point (which we definitely don't see). Our longitude lines form our time zones which we couldn't have on a flat earth. Time zones only make sense on a sphere.

There is a logical principle here that supervenes any empirical proof. That is, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed, our understanding of reality should begin with analysis of the necessary conditions of experience. That means, we should ask, what must the universe be like in order for our experience to be possible. A primary answer to this question is that the consistency observed by science shows that the universe obeys consistent physical laws.

As soon as we accept this principle of consistency as a necessary condition of our experience, all claims that conflict with abundantly attested scientific knowledge are ruled out. Creationists reject the principle of consistency, instead arguing that divine creation means their mythical fantasies have epistemic priority over the systematic observations conducted by the scientific community.

So it is not a matter of refuting flat earth theory by means of a specific anomaly, when the entire method that gave rise to the theory is totally inconsistent with the principle of the consistency of nature.

How is the consistency not self-evident? Why does the universe not instantly dissolve into individual atoms? Nothing really to keep it from happening except that it apparently doesn't want to. Whether by intention or by inertia, something holds the universe together. It hangs together. It may be in constant flux but it hangs together. It slowly changes but it shows a resistance to change. That by itself is consistency. Undeniable. We're here. Perhaps not the way we think we are but we are here.

The idea "that divine creation means their mythical fantasies have epistemic priority over the systematic observations conducted by the scientific community" implies that they are somehow magically imbued with empirical knowledge--meaning, of course, that it isn't empirical anymore. They have to be saying, "We were born with this knowledge. We only had to self-reflect to call this knowledge to our ken." Okay, then, write a symphony for us. Can't read music? Call it up from the depths of your consciousness. The knowledge has to be down there somewhere.

If you don't know something, you cannot learn it by self-reflection. If it were otherwise, no one would ever be illiterate. The knowledge lies outside you so you have to go seek it--which is empirical knowledge.

So, they would have to prove how their consciousness works so radically different from that of non-Christian human beings. They can't say the bible because there is no science to be found in the bible. So, the empirical knowledge Christians possess merely through the act of self-reflection has yet to even once be demonstrated. They have not proven in any way how "divine creation" imbued them with empirical knowledge.

Mr. Tulip wrote:Creationists reject the principle of consistency, instead arguing that divine creation means their mythical fantasies have epistemic priority over the systematic observations conducted by the scientific community. So it is not a matter of refuting flat earth theory by means of a specific anomaly, when the entire method that gave rise to the theory is totally inconsistent with the principle of the consistency of nature.

Interesting! Another closely related "principle" that science deniers rely on is the concept that one can believe absolutely anything, but to DISPROVE that, one must observe the information directly without relying on ANY external information from anyone else. So although there have been quite a few astronauts and billionaires who have orbited the moon, visited the space station, and provided extraordinary amounts of evidence of a spherical earth, none of that is relevant because I, JIMBOB JONES, have not directly observed it with my own internal sensory systems. All confirming data from the Governments of France, Germany, Russia, China and so on are also irrelevant because THEY ARE NOT ME, JIMBOB JONES and therefore are untrustworthy external data. Until I, JIMBOB JONES, directly perceive a spinning spherical earth, I will continue to summarily reject ALL information that purports to contradict my precious opinion that the earth is flat.

We understand that JIMBOB JONES, when wandering around directly observes a planet that appears to be stationary and flat, with a sun that moves in the sky. We likely held similar opinions when we were children. To disprove contradictory information some flat earthers attempt to run experiments that confirm their opinions by personal observation. Towards that goal, here is a brief video summarizing one complicated and one simple experiment run by flat earthers that failed to confirm a flat earth. Nevertheless, I'm sure zero flat earther opinions were revised.

We have encountered this science denying requirement for directly-observed counter-evidence many times in debates about evolution and cosmology. The defensive question is simply "WERE YOU THERE?" Since you did not directly observe the creation of the universe and evolution on earth, your opinions are worthless against mine. Until I, JIMBOB JONES directly observe the evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor, my opinions about divine creationism are irrefutable.

Another flaw in that argument is even if JIMBOB JONES did orbit the earth and become convinced earth is a sphere, that would carry no weight whatsoever with millions of other science deniers. Until every single science denier orbits the earth or is rendered immortal to observe evolution, these opinions will persist. This pseudo-requirement for direct personal observation of evidence may be the ultimate in arrogance and stubbornness.