6 ms·

'Being in a club with secret knowledge' doesn't fit the description of 'religion' very well, though there some aspects of cults for which the description may al

'Being in a club with secret knowledge' doesn't fit the description of 'religion' very well, though there some aspects of cults for which the description may allude. But that said - this is a hard one, much different than 'aliens' or 'arcane knowledge' because the simple truth is actually evident for everyone to see. It's the craziest of all conspiracy theories because it's so utterly deniable. I mean ... I don't think aliens have made contact with the White House ... but heck, it's in the realm of statistical plausibility! (Maybe I want it to be true ...). (Edit: we do spend many millions of 'legit' research dollars trying to find aliens, so it makes more sense that there's conspiracy there) But 'flat earth' has to be the dumbest of all. For this reason it's a very interest phenomenon.

lisper 8y ago
> 'Being in a club with secret knowledge' doesn't fit the description of 'religion' very well, Why not? (I debated whether or not to include "religion" in my comment because the word is so laden with baggage, but ultimately decided that it was apt, so I am prepared to defend it if you really want to go down that rabbit hole.) > But 'flat earth' has to be the dumbest of all. Not even close. (Go read some Scientology literature, or the Book of Mormon.) But the fact that FE is so vehemently rebutted by the scientific establishment is a feature to the flat-earthers, proof that they really are fighting the good fight even though the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against them. That's the whole point.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  + ~90% of the world's population are religious (depending on how you look at it) and they mostly grow up in communities wherein everyone is basically the same religion, ergo, they are not generally 'missionary' , 'proselytizing', nor do they feel they have access to 'special information'. In fact, it's the total opposite: for most of the world's religious, 'religion' is just part of every day, normative culture in most places. It's kind of mundane, actually. Jehova's Witnesses, referenced in the article, are a totally different ballgame. They are 'default proselytizers' and have a substantially different world view than most folks directly around them. + As for why 'Flat Earth' is considerably dumber than Scientology: 'Dianetics' - the Scientology predicate is very close to psychotherapy. Scientology itself is bizarre, but also very interesting 'armchair philosophy'. For example, I think Hubbard's concept of 'tone scale' is brilliant, though it belongs in a blog of ideas, obviously not an institution. But Scientology is very complex, there's a lot going on, many levels. I can see how it is 'rational' for people to get caught up in it, eve if it's crazy. Scientology leaders are not stupid. There are tons of otherwise very smart people caught up in Scientology ... it's not just full of idiots and crazy people. But 'Flat Earth' is utterly stupid. It's like saying 'the sky is not blue'. It's the denial of a simple, almost arbitrary fact and it makes no sense at all. I don't think regular people get trapped in 'Flat Earth' conspiracies. Something has to be almost 'wrong' I think to fall for this one. I think the term 'deprogramming' would be apt for a regular person caught up in a cult. For 'Flat Earth' - I don't know what one would do with one of those people.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    It’s all just layers of shit for people who are incapable of knowledge acquisition. Maybe one thing is piles of chicken shit mixed with pig shit and the other thing is one pile of horse shit but it’s all just shit. Flat Earth crap, anti-vaxxers, chemtrails, Scientology, Mormonism. They like to draw distinctions between them but it’s all just a matter of the kind of shit. Waste of time trying to say which one is stupider than the other because they’re all stupid. Not a worthwhile distinction irrespective of what percentage of world population believes whatever.
    - tntn 8y ago
      There are distinctions between them. Some of the things you mention make claims that fall into the domain of science (I.e. are falsifiable) and some do not (those regarding spirituality, miracles, etc). That is an important and worthwhile distinction. Incidentally, a lot of the problem of the anti-vaccine movement is not the facts (though there is a lot of that, too) but rather risk analysis. It is extremely probable (pretty much certain) that some vaccines have been associated with harm to some people in the past (and some maybe still do today) but the risk of that is so much ridiculously lower than the risk of not getting the vaccine that it is irrelevant.
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.
        tntn 8y ago
        I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indicate the earth is round, and call it a day. For other things, it is not so easy. Is there a god? How could you disprove that to yourself (different than choosing not to believe because of a lack of positive evidence)? Did Xenu bring billions of aliens to Earth a bajillion years ago and kill them all? Probably not, but how would you even disprove that? It left no trace other than spiritual beings that remain on earth and cannot be detected. I remain convinced that the specific claims impose their own difficulty to falsify (and yeah, many are designed to be hard to falsify). But yeah, I agree these exercises are a pretty useless way to spend time.
- tntn 8y ago
  > Not even close. (Go read some Scientology literature, or the Book of Mormon.) Color me intrigued. Which statements in the book of Mormon do you believe are significantly more readily deniable than "the earth is flat" in some sense different that doesn't also apply to the statements in, say, the bible. Same question for Scientology.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Well, I could also point to the Bible, but I feel like I'm already pushing the boundaries of what is appropriate on HN. In the case of the BoM it's not so much what's in the Book as the process by which it came to be written. Joseph Smith literally pulled it out of his hat! Also the ancillary beliefs that have grown up around it: Kolob, sacred underwear, institutionalized racism, polygamy... In the case of Scientology, oh my goodness, where to even begin. The whole thing is just chock-full of weird. Thetans, Xenu, Clams... Just browse xenu.net.
    - tntn 8y ago
      Sounds like you are just talking about things you find really weird rather than things that are easily falsifiable. I'm not convinced that any of the things you are discussing can be disproved more easily than flat earth.
      - lisper 8y ago
        I think you're underestimating how hard it is to disprove a flat earth (to a flat-earher).
        tntn 8y ago
        I think you are confusing how hard it is to convince flat-earthers that the earth is not flat with how ridiculously easy it is to prove the the earth is not flat. I (and the original comment you responded to) are discussing the second of these two.
        8y ago

lisper 8y ago

> 'Being in a club with secret knowledge' doesn't fit the description of 'religion' very well, Why not? (I debated whether or not to include "religion" in my comment because the word is so laden with baggage, but ultimately decided that it was apt, so I am prepared to defend it if you really want to go down that rabbit hole.) > But 'flat earth' has to be the dumbest of all. Not even close. (Go read some Scientology literature, or the Book of Mormon.) But the fact that FE is so vehemently rebutted by the scientific establishment is a feature to the flat-earthers, proof that they really are fighting the good fight even though the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against them. That's the whole point.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
+ ~90% of the world's population are religious (depending on how you look at it) and they mostly grow up in communities wherein everyone is basically the same religion, ergo, they are not generally 'missionary' , 'proselytizing', nor do they feel they have access to 'special information'. In fact, it's the total opposite: for most of the world's religious, 'religion' is just part of every day, normative culture in most places. It's kind of mundane, actually. Jehova's Witnesses, referenced in the article, are a totally different ballgame. They are 'default proselytizers' and have a substantially different world view than most folks directly around them. + As for why 'Flat Earth' is considerably dumber than Scientology: 'Dianetics' - the Scientology predicate is very close to psychotherapy. Scientology itself is bizarre, but also very interesting 'armchair philosophy'. For example, I think Hubbard's concept of 'tone scale' is brilliant, though it belongs in a blog of ideas, obviously not an institution. But Scientology is very complex, there's a lot going on, many levels. I can see how it is 'rational' for people to get caught up in it, eve if it's crazy. Scientology leaders are not stupid. There are tons of otherwise very smart people caught up in Scientology ... it's not just full of idiots and crazy people. But 'Flat Earth' is utterly stupid. It's like saying 'the sky is not blue'. It's the denial of a simple, almost arbitrary fact and it makes no sense at all. I don't think regular people get trapped in 'Flat Earth' conspiracies. Something has to be almost 'wrong' I think to fall for this one. I think the term 'deprogramming' would be apt for a regular person caught up in a cult. For 'Flat Earth' - I don't know what one would do with one of those people.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  It’s all just layers of shit for people who are incapable of knowledge acquisition. Maybe one thing is piles of chicken shit mixed with pig shit and the other thing is one pile of horse shit but it’s all just shit. Flat Earth crap, anti-vaxxers, chemtrails, Scientology, Mormonism. They like to draw distinctions between them but it’s all just a matter of the kind of shit. Waste of time trying to say which one is stupider than the other because they’re all stupid. Not a worthwhile distinction irrespective of what percentage of world population believes whatever.
  - tntn 8y ago
    There are distinctions between them. Some of the things you mention make claims that fall into the domain of science (I.e. are falsifiable) and some do not (those regarding spirituality, miracles, etc). That is an important and worthwhile distinction. Incidentally, a lot of the problem of the anti-vaccine movement is not the facts (though there is a lot of that, too) but rather risk analysis. It is extremely probable (pretty much certain) that some vaccines have been associated with harm to some people in the past (and some maybe still do today) but the risk of that is so much ridiculously lower than the risk of not getting the vaccine that it is irrelevant.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.
      - tntn 8y ago
        I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indicate the earth is round, and call it a day. For other things, it is not so easy. Is there a god? How could you disprove that to yourself (different than choosing not to believe because of a lack of positive evidence)? Did Xenu bring billions of aliens to Earth a bajillion years ago and kill them all? Probably not, but how would you even disprove that? It left no trace other than spiritual beings that remain on earth and cannot be detected. I remain convinced that the specific claims impose their own difficulty to falsify (and yeah, many are designed to be hard to falsify). But yeah, I agree these exercises are a pretty useless way to spend time.
tntn 8y ago
> Not even close. (Go read some Scientology literature, or the Book of Mormon.) Color me intrigued. Which statements in the book of Mormon do you believe are significantly more readily deniable than "the earth is flat" in some sense different that doesn't also apply to the statements in, say, the bible. Same question for Scientology.
- lisper 8y ago
  Well, I could also point to the Bible, but I feel like I'm already pushing the boundaries of what is appropriate on HN. In the case of the BoM it's not so much what's in the Book as the process by which it came to be written. Joseph Smith literally pulled it out of his hat! Also the ancillary beliefs that have grown up around it: Kolob, sacred underwear, institutionalized racism, polygamy... In the case of Scientology, oh my goodness, where to even begin. The whole thing is just chock-full of weird. Thetans, Xenu, Clams... Just browse xenu.net.
  - tntn 8y ago
    Sounds like you are just talking about things you find really weird rather than things that are easily falsifiable. I'm not convinced that any of the things you are discussing can be disproved more easily than flat earth.
    - lisper 8y ago
      I think you're underestimating how hard it is to disprove a flat earth (to a flat-earher).
      - tntn 8y ago
        I think you are confusing how hard it is to convince flat-earthers that the earth is not flat with how ridiculously easy it is to prove the the earth is not flat. I (and the original comment you responded to) are discussing the second of these two.
        8y ago