I'm sure they are all delightful people, but anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay, and many other stupid things that...
I'm sure they are all delightful people, but anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay, and many other stupid things that get thrown around as if true should be laughed at and/or ignored.
Just because everyone can have a voice now, doesn't mean that everyone should be listened to.
Exactly this. It's why I dislike the idea that everyone's ideas should be treated equally. No. Sometimes the opponent is someone who insists that gravity isn't real and we all have really sticky feet.
Exactly this. It's why I dislike the idea that everyone's ideas should be treated equally. No. Sometimes the opponent is someone who insists that gravity isn't real and we all have really sticky feet.
As you said in another comment, it's hard to argue with someone that either doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and/or simply "doesn't trust the sources". The first is just a waste...
As you said in another comment, it's hard to argue with someone that either doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and/or simply "doesn't trust the sources".
The first is just a waste of time and the second is intellectually deviant in that there are many things that are facts, you can't dispute a source for what is readily proven (and has been so for centuries).
It's like disagreeing the Earth's tilt causes seasons. You can fail to understand the science for it, but you can't argue that it isn't real because of it.
I wonder if it isn't a tribalism of the "firsts". The first entity to make an impact is the one that sticks. Unfortunately that tends to be youtubers and sensation articles blowing hot air by...
I wonder if it isn't a tribalism of the "firsts". The first entity to make an impact is the one that sticks. Unfortunately that tends to be youtubers and sensation articles blowing hot air by yelling at people on the internet.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I hope it's not true, though, but I have a sneaky suspicion that you are not wrong. And, also, I wonder if it is getting harder instead of easier to leave the...
That's an interesting hypothesis. I hope it's not true, though, but I have a sneaky suspicion that you are not wrong.
And, also, I wonder if it is getting harder instead of easier to leave the mentality you were born into. With so many ways to propagate your views and your group, maybe it's getting harder to see what else is out there and be exposed to all sorts of thinking.
If anything, I think it's the opposite. people, historically, tend to balk against what is seen as the status quo. As things are getting more progressive, the counterculture is... well, bigotry...
If anything, I think it's the opposite. people, historically, tend to balk against what is seen as the status quo. As things are getting more progressive, the counterculture is... well, bigotry and challenging proven facts for the sake of it.
I'm having a hard time deciding which would be worse. Although I'm always happy to see that it's not all bad yet, that we can still find people to have nice and productive arguments with. Not all...
I'm having a hard time deciding which would be worse.
Although I'm always happy to see that it's not all bad yet, that we can still find people to have nice and productive arguments with. Not all hope is lost.
Agreed, there's no law stating you can't proclaim the sky to be green. But that doesn't mean we have to treat that opinion with any sort of reverence when it's clearly not grounded in reality and...
Agreed, there's no law stating you can't proclaim the sky to be green. But that doesn't mean we have to treat that opinion with any sort of reverence when it's clearly not grounded in reality and not even a particularly interesting thing to reconsider.
What I took out of the article wasn't so much that we should be listening to these people in earnest, but that we should investigate further why people come to believe these things.
What I took out of the article wasn't so much that we should be listening to these people in earnest, but that we should investigate further why people come to believe these things.
That's what I got out of the article too. What drives people to believe and defend these conspiracy? Also, I'm no flat-Earther, but we should always be able to defend our own positions too. And...
That's what I got out of the article too. What drives people to believe and defend these conspiracy? Also, I'm no flat-Earther, but we should always be able to defend our own positions too. And honestly, that defense has to go beyond "you have low intelligence".
It's really hard to defend your own position against one that has literally no basis in science. Flat earth was disproven in the 1500s or earlier. I've tried showing sources to people who think...
It's really hard to defend your own position against one that has literally no basis in science. Flat earth was disproven in the 1500s or earlier.
I've tried showing sources to people who think the earth is flat. They refuse to listen. At some point, you have to say "science says you're wrong."
I think that's when it's important to look into why they would believe such a thing. Fundamentally, I don't think it's a science thing. I think it's a trust thing. They don't trust the sources.
I think that's when it's important to look into why they would believe such a thing. Fundamentally, I don't think it's a science thing. I think it's a trust thing. They don't trust the sources.
You can't make someone trust the sources if they have been convinced it's not trustworthy. It takes a long time to build trust. I think a better idea would be to look into why they believe a...
You can't make someone trust the sources if they have been convinced it's not trustworthy. It takes a long time to build trust. I think a better idea would be to look into why they believe a nonreputable source over a known reputable source.
I think that's where the major issue lies. Somewhere along the lines, people have stopped believing academics and started believing the equivalent of "My next door neighbour's son's cousin's cat".
I think that's where the major issue lies. Somewhere along the lines, people have stopped believing academics and started believing the equivalent of "My next door neighbour's son's cousin's cat".
Lack of education? Inability to process information properly? Intellectual laziness? I don't know, I'm really down with the level of intelligence being displayed by the majority these days, don't...
Lack of education? Inability to process information properly? Intellectual laziness?
I don't know, I'm really down with the level of intelligence being displayed by the majority these days, don't know if I'd like to discover what really lies in the brains of people that believe this sort of thing. It might be too depressing. The whole "post-truth" thing is still something I have trouble dealing with, I guess.
I'm cool with the conspiracy theories, it's unprovable one way or the other, so believe that the Illuminati run the world or whatever it is. But flat Earth? Haven't we moved past this one centuries ago? I'm sorry, I'm just bummed out with the direction most public discourse is going and I think it's coming through now in everything. Sorry.
I don't think we should ignore them or laugh at them, that's just unproductive. I actually relate somewhat to them as they often are at least looking for the truth. They just don't have the...
I don't think we should ignore them or laugh at them, that's just unproductive. I actually relate somewhat to them as they often are at least looking for the truth. They just don't have the critical thinking skills to properly parse the flat earth arguments.
When I was younger I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories and had the same issues. But I eventually found The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast which I highly recommend. It along with the general skeptic community helps me figure out how to better sort out the arguments used by conspiracy theorists.
So when it comes to people like flat earthers and others, I don't think we should ignore them until all avenues of communication are dead. We need to have a very refined approach when dealing with them as a lot of them are just looking for the truth and trying to understand the world. That being said, there are others in these communities who do have blind faith, or are intentionally exploiting their community for money.
I'm unfortunately out of patience for this. I've been trying to educate people in the basic tenets of being a decent citizen in my country and have so far failed miserably at it, due to poor...
I'm unfortunately out of patience for this. I've been trying to educate people in the basic tenets of being a decent citizen in my country and have so far failed miserably at it, due to poor education and intellectual laziness.
Like I said, I really don't mind the conspiracy theories, because that's something you can choose to believe and no one can really prove most of them either way. And that goes to all the other still uncertain things we deal with, even the people that believe in politician's promises.
But flat Earth and the like? Nah, I'm done with those. You can't argue with scientific evidence, there's no reason to listen to that 1 guy that goes against the other 4.999. I like contrarian thinking, I like people challenging established concepts. But you can't challenge reality and that's the line after which I'm out. You can further our understanding of things, obviously; you can expand on what we already know. But you can't want to take us back a millennium and expect to have that opinion validated; you can't defend that something that has clearly improved life on Earth is bad. That sort of thing should be laughed at and dismissed.
For those that haven't heard it, I highly recommend Ross & Carrie's Oh No! podcast series where they went to meetings, talked about the conference, and actually interviewed Mark Sargent. Here's a...
For those that haven't heard it, I highly recommend Ross & Carrie's Oh No! podcast series where they went to meetings, talked about the conference, and actually interviewed Mark Sargent. Here's a link to the first episode. (I sure hope linking works like it does on reddit, first post). If nothing else, please listen to episode 5 with Mark S. The sheer mind contortions one has to go through to believe any of this... I'm in awe.
What also was fascinating to me is not the fact that these people believe in flat earth, but that it wasn't the only conspiracy they typically believe. Nearly all of the people they spoke to were already knee deep into other things: UFOs, 9/11, alternative medicine, Jews run the world, etc. Even in this article it is mentioned that many come across these conspiracies through linked social media. It is no wonder the ranks of conspiracy believers are increasing with each improved suggestion algorithm.
I find it ironic that the internet's empowering the spread of this stuff at an unprecedented volume, when the very thing it promised to bring about was an age of information and enlightenment. I...
I find it ironic that the internet's empowering the spread of this stuff at an unprecedented volume, when the very thing it promised to bring about was an age of information and enlightenment. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle, as with most things: we've got a little both. On the whole the pros of the internet outweigh the cons, but hoo boy these unintended consequences are going to have some long-term social ramifications. I don't know if anyone could've predicted this scenario.
And I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg today.
On the topic of how a theory becomes truth, I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's remarkable The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here he quotes two famous Scientists from history:
On the topic of how a theory becomes truth, I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's remarkable The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here he quotes two famous Scientists from history:
Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of his Origin of Species, wrote: “Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume..., I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. . . . But I look with confidence to the future,—to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.” And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I haven't read the article and I'm not going to. What I want to say is this though... Why in the world has the whole topic gotten so much media coverage and attention for so long?!? It's idiotic....
I haven't read the article and I'm not going to. What I want to say is this though...
Why in the world has the whole topic gotten so much media coverage and attention for so long?!? It's idiotic. What I find even more troubling than people believing in a flat earth is that there are enough people out there willing to engage on the subject that it sustains continued media coverage. Just stop already.
I'm sure they are all delightful people, but anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay, and many other stupid things that get thrown around as if true should be laughed at and/or ignored.
Just because everyone can have a voice now, doesn't mean that everyone should be listened to.
Exactly this. It's why I dislike the idea that everyone's ideas should be treated equally. No. Sometimes the opponent is someone who insists that gravity isn't real and we all have really sticky feet.
As you said in another comment, it's hard to argue with someone that either doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and/or simply "doesn't trust the sources".
The first is just a waste of time and the second is intellectually deviant in that there are many things that are facts, you can't dispute a source for what is readily proven (and has been so for centuries).
It's like disagreeing the Earth's tilt causes seasons. You can fail to understand the science for it, but you can't argue that it isn't real because of it.
I wonder if it isn't a tribalism of the "firsts". The first entity to make an impact is the one that sticks. Unfortunately that tends to be youtubers and sensation articles blowing hot air by yelling at people on the internet.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I hope it's not true, though, but I have a sneaky suspicion that you are not wrong.
And, also, I wonder if it is getting harder instead of easier to leave the mentality you were born into. With so many ways to propagate your views and your group, maybe it's getting harder to see what else is out there and be exposed to all sorts of thinking.
If anything, I think it's the opposite. people, historically, tend to balk against what is seen as the status quo. As things are getting more progressive, the counterculture is... well, bigotry and challenging proven facts for the sake of it.
I'm having a hard time deciding which would be worse.
Although I'm always happy to see that it's not all bad yet, that we can still find people to have nice and productive arguments with. Not all hope is lost.
This was a really good (long) article on the topic: How America Went Haywire
Agreed, there's no law stating you can't proclaim the sky to be green. But that doesn't mean we have to treat that opinion with any sort of reverence when it's clearly not grounded in reality and not even a particularly interesting thing to reconsider.
What I took out of the article wasn't so much that we should be listening to these people in earnest, but that we should investigate further why people come to believe these things.
That's what I got out of the article too. What drives people to believe and defend these conspiracy? Also, I'm no flat-Earther, but we should always be able to defend our own positions too. And honestly, that defense has to go beyond "you have low intelligence".
It's really hard to defend your own position against one that has literally no basis in science. Flat earth was disproven in the 1500s or earlier.
I've tried showing sources to people who think the earth is flat. They refuse to listen. At some point, you have to say "science says you're wrong."
I think that's when it's important to look into why they would believe such a thing. Fundamentally, I don't think it's a science thing. I think it's a trust thing. They don't trust the sources.
You can't make someone trust the sources if they have been convinced it's not trustworthy. It takes a long time to build trust. I think a better idea would be to look into why they believe a nonreputable source over a known reputable source.
I do agree with this too. It is definitely really strange to me that they can believe random youtube videos over years of their own schooling.
I think that's where the major issue lies. Somewhere along the lines, people have stopped believing academics and started believing the equivalent of "My next door neighbour's son's cousin's cat".
There’s evidence that the roundness of the earth was known as early as the 5th century BCE. It’s far older information than the Renaissance.
Lack of education? Inability to process information properly? Intellectual laziness?
I don't know, I'm really down with the level of intelligence being displayed by the majority these days, don't know if I'd like to discover what really lies in the brains of people that believe this sort of thing. It might be too depressing. The whole "post-truth" thing is still something I have trouble dealing with, I guess.
I'm cool with the conspiracy theories, it's unprovable one way or the other, so believe that the Illuminati run the world or whatever it is. But flat Earth? Haven't we moved past this one centuries ago? I'm sorry, I'm just bummed out with the direction most public discourse is going and I think it's coming through now in everything. Sorry.
I don't think we should ignore them or laugh at them, that's just unproductive. I actually relate somewhat to them as they often are at least looking for the truth. They just don't have the critical thinking skills to properly parse the flat earth arguments.
When I was younger I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories and had the same issues. But I eventually found The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast which I highly recommend. It along with the general skeptic community helps me figure out how to better sort out the arguments used by conspiracy theorists.
So when it comes to people like flat earthers and others, I don't think we should ignore them until all avenues of communication are dead. We need to have a very refined approach when dealing with them as a lot of them are just looking for the truth and trying to understand the world. That being said, there are others in these communities who do have blind faith, or are intentionally exploiting their community for money.
I'm unfortunately out of patience for this. I've been trying to educate people in the basic tenets of being a decent citizen in my country and have so far failed miserably at it, due to poor education and intellectual laziness.
Like I said, I really don't mind the conspiracy theories, because that's something you can choose to believe and no one can really prove most of them either way. And that goes to all the other still uncertain things we deal with, even the people that believe in politician's promises.
But flat Earth and the like? Nah, I'm done with those. You can't argue with scientific evidence, there's no reason to listen to that 1 guy that goes against the other 4.999. I like contrarian thinking, I like people challenging established concepts. But you can't challenge reality and that's the line after which I'm out. You can further our understanding of things, obviously; you can expand on what we already know. But you can't want to take us back a millennium and expect to have that opinion validated; you can't defend that something that has clearly improved life on Earth is bad. That sort of thing should be laughed at and dismissed.
For those that haven't heard it, I highly recommend Ross & Carrie's Oh No! podcast series where they went to meetings, talked about the conference, and actually interviewed Mark Sargent. Here's a link to the first episode. (I sure hope linking works like it does on reddit, first post). If nothing else, please listen to episode 5 with Mark S. The sheer mind contortions one has to go through to believe any of this... I'm in awe.
What also was fascinating to me is not the fact that these people believe in flat earth, but that it wasn't the only conspiracy they typically believe. Nearly all of the people they spoke to were already knee deep into other things: UFOs, 9/11, alternative medicine, Jews run the world, etc. Even in this article it is mentioned that many come across these conspiracies through linked social media. It is no wonder the ranks of conspiracy believers are increasing with each improved suggestion algorithm.
I find it ironic that the internet's empowering the spread of this stuff at an unprecedented volume, when the very thing it promised to bring about was an age of information and enlightenment. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle, as with most things: we've got a little both. On the whole the pros of the internet outweigh the cons, but hoo boy these unintended consequences are going to have some long-term social ramifications. I don't know if anyone could've predicted this scenario.
And I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg today.
On the topic of how a theory becomes truth, I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's remarkable The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here he quotes two famous Scientists from history:
I haven't read the article and I'm not going to. What I want to say is this though...
Why in the world has the whole topic gotten so much media coverage and attention for so long?!? It's idiotic. What I find even more troubling than people believing in a flat earth is that there are enough people out there willing to engage on the subject that it sustains continued media coverage. Just stop already.