Confidence in most scientific knowledge does not come from first hand experience with the phenomena being described. An individual simply cannot “prove” every scientific fact they’re exposed to....
Confidence in most scientific knowledge does not come from first hand experience with the phenomena being described. An individual simply cannot “prove” every scientific fact they’re exposed to. Rather confidence comes from an understanding of and trust in the institutions and processes that produce the knowledge. I read this Flat Earth thing as a failure of public education systems to teach people that science is much more than just direct, first hand experimentation.
I think that's a big part of it. In particular, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that science is presented more as a subject matter than it is as a method. "Science" is primarily a method,...
I read this Flat Earth thing as a failure of public education systems to teach people that science is much more than just direct, first hand experimentation.
I think that's a big part of it. In particular, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that science is presented more as a subject matter than it is as a method. "Science" is primarily a method, and it is not specific to "the sciences" in any way. It is basically a tool for solving problems; the process by which we come to know anything in the strict sense. But the methods of education typically fail to cultivate an empirical or critical/reflective habit of thought in learners. Education is something done to you, unfortunately, rather than being autonomous inquiry motivated by the actual interests of learners. You undergo the given curriculum, and strive for good marks for a purpose remote to your individual experience and the subject matter itself. Knowledge is a commodity you consume in education, not a process you participate in recreating. Some describe it as being inoculated against wonder and inquiry.
I think that's where you get a lack of confidence, understanding, and trust in science. We don't realize the difference between common sense and knowledge. Common sense is conflated with direct experimentation--inquiry is left out of the equation. It shouldn't be a question of believing and trusting science or not. Science doesn't want your faith. It wants to you to use logic to reflectively grasp the meaning of the facts it presents--what relationships and conditions they indicate. Science provides facts in the form of a map and directions for arriving at the same results and conclusions as scientists did in the field. Logic is sufficient in retracing that course vicariously because the actual conclusions of science are not experiences themselves, but direct experiences abstracted in the form of logical conditions and consequences. But in school, or even in mass media, the facts of science are just given as matters-of-fact to be noted and affirmed. Their meanings, that is, the ways they actually enrich experience are typically overlooked. This is because that aspect of science is taken-for-granted by those who affirm the authority of science as subject matter, but more importantly, because learners don't have to DO science to "learn" science in school. The empirical significance of facts is reduced to mere information.
It's curious to me that in the age of mass exchange of information, particularly through social media, empirically verifiable matters-of-fact can be mutated into mere matters-of-faith. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists all attempt to challenge the institution of Science on the basis of belief, because when all knowledge is equated with common sense--or prejudice--there is really no standard for evaluation other than taste.
Sorry for the ramble! This topic connects to the dissertation I am currently writing...needed to vent!
Edit: I made many typos when writing this on my phone.
I think you're largely right. What makes the whole flat Earth group so hard to understand is that you can in fact and do in fact see the incontrovertible evidence yourself. The...
I think you're largely right.
What makes the whole flat Earth group so hard to understand is that you can in fact and do in fact see the incontrovertible evidence yourself.
The skepticism/disbelief some have of science goes so far that they're unwilling to believe what they can see right in front of them.
Has anybody actually seen the documentary "Behind The Curve"? (I feel dirty calling it a documentary, but it definitely isn't cinema lol) I got high and watched it last year expecting to have a...
Has anybody actually seen the documentary "Behind The Curve"? (I feel dirty calling it a documentary, but it definitely isn't cinema lol)
I got high and watched it last year expecting to have a good laugh but instead felt an overwhelming sense of pity. The Flat-Earth movement, whether it started out as trolls or not, is merely the product of those the education system has failed. People who the system failed and are socially and intelligently disenfranchised with the world around them.
For the vast majority of them, it's not actually trying to prove the world is flat, it's simply a keen sense of community they've all lacked.
I've heard that that's the way the flat earth movement started. Just a bunch of people doing it as a joke, but then people actually started taking it seriously.
I've heard that that's the way the flat earth movement started. Just a bunch of people doing it as a joke, but then people actually started taking it seriously.
I sailed across the atlantic, just me and my wife on board, so no government conspiracy either. I can definitely say that if earth wasn't round and looked like it does on globes, we wouldn't have...
I sailed across the atlantic, just me and my wife on board, so no government conspiracy either. I can definitely say that if earth wasn't round and looked like it does on globes, we wouldn't have been able to navigate for 3 weeks on an ocean with zero landmarks and come out exactly where we aimed to go.
That's the thing, flat-Earthism completely falls apart as soon as you venture into the world instead of just theorizing about it from afar. If a prominent person in the movement were to expedition...
That's the thing, flat-Earthism completely falls apart as soon as you venture into the world instead of just theorizing about it from afar. If a prominent person in the movement were to expedition to Antarctica, Mt. Everest, or perform a circumnavigation, they wouldn't be able to defend the theory anymore. If they documented their findings and spread the truth to their followers, this whole thing would deflate rather quickly.
Or maybe it wouldn't. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.
Confidence in most scientific knowledge does not come from first hand experience with the phenomena being described. An individual simply cannot “prove” every scientific fact they’re exposed to. Rather confidence comes from an understanding of and trust in the institutions and processes that produce the knowledge. I read this Flat Earth thing as a failure of public education systems to teach people that science is much more than just direct, first hand experimentation.
I think that's a big part of it. In particular, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that science is presented more as a subject matter than it is as a method. "Science" is primarily a method, and it is not specific to "the sciences" in any way. It is basically a tool for solving problems; the process by which we come to know anything in the strict sense. But the methods of education typically fail to cultivate an empirical or critical/reflective habit of thought in learners. Education is something done to you, unfortunately, rather than being autonomous inquiry motivated by the actual interests of learners. You undergo the given curriculum, and strive for good marks for a purpose remote to your individual experience and the subject matter itself. Knowledge is a commodity you consume in education, not a process you participate in recreating. Some describe it as being inoculated against wonder and inquiry.
I think that's where you get a lack of confidence, understanding, and trust in science. We don't realize the difference between common sense and knowledge. Common sense is conflated with direct experimentation--inquiry is left out of the equation. It shouldn't be a question of believing and trusting science or not. Science doesn't want your faith. It wants to you to use logic to reflectively grasp the meaning of the facts it presents--what relationships and conditions they indicate. Science provides facts in the form of a map and directions for arriving at the same results and conclusions as scientists did in the field. Logic is sufficient in retracing that course vicariously because the actual conclusions of science are not experiences themselves, but direct experiences abstracted in the form of logical conditions and consequences. But in school, or even in mass media, the facts of science are just given as matters-of-fact to be noted and affirmed. Their meanings, that is, the ways they actually enrich experience are typically overlooked. This is because that aspect of science is taken-for-granted by those who affirm the authority of science as subject matter, but more importantly, because learners don't have to DO science to "learn" science in school. The empirical significance of facts is reduced to mere information.
It's curious to me that in the age of mass exchange of information, particularly through social media, empirically verifiable matters-of-fact can be mutated into mere matters-of-faith. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists all attempt to challenge the institution of Science on the basis of belief, because when all knowledge is equated with common sense--or prejudice--there is really no standard for evaluation other than taste.
Sorry for the ramble! This topic connects to the dissertation I am currently writing...needed to vent!
Edit: I made many typos when writing this on my phone.
I think you're largely right.
What makes the whole flat Earth group so hard to understand is that you can in fact and do in fact see the incontrovertible evidence yourself.
The skepticism/disbelief some have of science goes so far that they're unwilling to believe what they can see right in front of them.
Has anybody actually seen the documentary "Behind The Curve"? (I feel dirty calling it a documentary, but it definitely isn't cinema lol)
I got high and watched it last year expecting to have a good laugh but instead felt an overwhelming sense of pity. The Flat-Earth movement, whether it started out as trolls or not, is merely the product of those the education system has failed. People who the system failed and are socially and intelligently disenfranchised with the world around them.
For the vast majority of them, it's not actually trying to prove the world is flat, it's simply a keen sense of community they've all lacked.
That sounds really sad
I love the headline, and the article seems pretty solid. But sometimes I wonder whether some of them might be trolling people?
I've heard that that's the way the flat earth movement started. Just a bunch of people doing it as a joke, but then people actually started taking it seriously.
I sailed across the atlantic, just me and my wife on board, so no government conspiracy either. I can definitely say that if earth wasn't round and looked like it does on globes, we wouldn't have been able to navigate for 3 weeks on an ocean with zero landmarks and come out exactly where we aimed to go.
That's the thing, flat-Earthism completely falls apart as soon as you venture into the world instead of just theorizing about it from afar. If a prominent person in the movement were to expedition to Antarctica, Mt. Everest, or perform a circumnavigation, they wouldn't be able to defend the theory anymore. If they documented their findings and spread the truth to their followers, this whole thing would deflate rather quickly.
Or maybe it wouldn't. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.