4 ms·

Some may be gloating, but I think the majority are simply pointing out the tragic irony of someone losing their life over a demonstrable, undisputed fact that h

Some may be gloating, but I think the majority are simply pointing out the tragic irony of someone losing their life over a demonstrable, undisputed fact that has been known for several hundred years. Conspiracy theories and the anti-science thinking behind them are dangerous, both to society and to individuals, as this case sadly demonstrates.

catalogia 7y ago
He didn't lose his life because of a belief in the flat earth. He lost his life because he was a daredevil. His use of the flat earth meme for promotional purposes is incidental to his death. Furthermore if a few nutjobs on the fringes of society believing silly shit is genuinely a threat to society, then society must be fragile beyond belief. I reject this.
- ssklash 7y ago
  There have been measles outbreaks and other outbreaks of essentially eradicated diseases because of anti-vaxers. They are no longer simply fringe, and they do pose a real threat to society. A rejection of science, facts, and reason that can be spread instantly over the Internet resulting in something like the possible compromise of herd immunity to solved diseases is a huge problem. How does society continue if it is not based on facts and reason? One person, sure, no big deal. But who would have guessed a hundred years ago people would seriously consider the earth was flat in the numbers that people seem to today?
  - swamp40 7y ago
    100 years ago, we believed that people were only ignorant because of their lack of available access to information and knowledge. Now, of course, we know better...
  - catalogia 7y ago
    If you need to jump through so many levels of indirection to explain why a silly daredevil is a threat to society, maybe you should ease the fuck up and stop celebrating the man's death. Mike Hughes' share of the blame for measles outbreaks is immeasurable small and indirect compared to people like Oprah.
    - stan_rogers 7y ago
      They're the same idiots. I can't stress that strongly enough. Spend some time actually watching what they're doing and learning who they are.
- stan_rogers 7y ago
  They're the same stock as anti-vaxxers, young Earth creationists and so forth; there's a lot of cross-pollenation. You're seeing perhaps the silliest blip on the radar, the most reflective peak, and ignoring the huge iceberg of harmful ignorance and reactionary anti-science it represents.
  - ssklash 7y ago
    This. These people vote. If the people they want to elect share even a few of their anti-science, essentially anti-reality views, that affects us all negatively. Political party doesn't even come into it, since any politician not operating based on reality is a horrible outcome. Politics has enough theories and things reasonable people can disagree on without having to debate science from hundreds of years ago.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      There are no flat earth politicians getting elected. You are grossly exaggerating the harm a flat earther stuntman has caused by lumping him in with other people who believe and did other things. It's disgusting. What's next, blaming your neighborhood moon landing denialist for global warming? Get a grip.
ColanR 7y ago
> Conspiracy theories and the anti-science thinking behind them I don't think you understand what's behind the mindset of people who theorize conspiracies. There's no sense of being unscientific; in fact, such folks often use the scientific method rigorously. The difference is one of trust - who do you trust unquestioningly to give you good information? The scientific community? Conspiracy theorists question sources of information. That's the 'conspiracy theory' part. When they question sufficiently fundamental or universal sources, they tend to diverge rather greatly from mainstream consensus. I wish people would stop being so ignorant about so-called conspiracy theorists, and I wish people were less predjudiced against them. Don't forget that Monsanto successfully faked and suppressed scientific evidence for years ('the scientific community never lies', eh?), and the biggest tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of the 2000s was that the US government was spying on its citizens. BTW, I'm not a flat earther.
- ssklash 7y ago
  "they tend to diverge rather greatly from mainstream consensus." How is that consensus arrived at? Science. Many may appear to apply the scientific method, but simply reject anything that doesn't confirm their prior beliefs. Science discovered the earth was round and put a man on the moon. Rejecting that, or "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science. They can use science to work out things, and use it to debunk their own theories. They don't because their beliefs are born out of social and political factors. But the result is a society in which science is trusted less, and that is bad for all of us. A close relative is incredibly deep into conspiracy theories, so I like to think I understand their thinking quite well. There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. The NSA spying on us was an actual conspiracy. A fake moon landing is a conspiracy theory. The existence of a certain number of real conspiracies doesn't give any more weight to other conspiracy theories. tldr: Conspiracy theories are bad and hurt society by weakening science.
  - ColanR 7y ago
    "science" is the enactment of the scientific method, which involves hypotheses and Ockham's Razor. > "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science There is no sense in which this is true. Have you ever gone to a doctor for a second opinion? Peer review itself is based on "questioning the sources" of an article. In my example, the questioning is extended to whole fields of study, or groups of scientists. And my real world example, Monsanto, is exactly why such larger categories of sources should be questioned. > There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. No, there isn't. The only difference is in the amount of information available. Many people found the US surveilance conspiracy compelling, at a level of information it sounds like you would have disparaged. That makes them perceptive, not anti-scientific. TLDR: mistrust is often well-placed, and those who believe the scientific community is above question are naive.

catalogia 7y ago

He didn't lose his life because of a belief in the flat earth. He lost his life because he was a daredevil. His use of the flat earth meme for promotional purposes is incidental to his death. Furthermore if a few nutjobs on the fringes of society believing silly shit is genuinely a threat to society, then society must be fragile beyond belief. I reject this.

ssklash 7y ago
There have been measles outbreaks and other outbreaks of essentially eradicated diseases because of anti-vaxers. They are no longer simply fringe, and they do pose a real threat to society. A rejection of science, facts, and reason that can be spread instantly over the Internet resulting in something like the possible compromise of herd immunity to solved diseases is a huge problem. How does society continue if it is not based on facts and reason? One person, sure, no big deal. But who would have guessed a hundred years ago people would seriously consider the earth was flat in the numbers that people seem to today?
- swamp40 7y ago
  100 years ago, we believed that people were only ignorant because of their lack of available access to information and knowledge. Now, of course, we know better...
- catalogia 7y ago
  If you need to jump through so many levels of indirection to explain why a silly daredevil is a threat to society, maybe you should ease the fuck up and stop celebrating the man's death. Mike Hughes' share of the blame for measles outbreaks is immeasurable small and indirect compared to people like Oprah.
  - stan_rogers 7y ago
    They're the same idiots. I can't stress that strongly enough. Spend some time actually watching what they're doing and learning who they are.
stan_rogers 7y ago
They're the same stock as anti-vaxxers, young Earth creationists and so forth; there's a lot of cross-pollenation. You're seeing perhaps the silliest blip on the radar, the most reflective peak, and ignoring the huge iceberg of harmful ignorance and reactionary anti-science it represents.
- ssklash 7y ago
  This. These people vote. If the people they want to elect share even a few of their anti-science, essentially anti-reality views, that affects us all negatively. Political party doesn't even come into it, since any politician not operating based on reality is a horrible outcome. Politics has enough theories and things reasonable people can disagree on without having to debate science from hundreds of years ago.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    There are no flat earth politicians getting elected. You are grossly exaggerating the harm a flat earther stuntman has caused by lumping him in with other people who believe and did other things. It's disgusting. What's next, blaming your neighborhood moon landing denialist for global warming? Get a grip.

ColanR 7y ago

> Conspiracy theories and the anti-science thinking behind them I don't think you understand what's behind the mindset of people who theorize conspiracies. There's no sense of being unscientific; in fact, such folks often use the scientific method rigorously. The difference is one of trust - who do you trust unquestioningly to give you good information? The scientific community? Conspiracy theorists question sources of information. That's the 'conspiracy theory' part. When they question sufficiently fundamental or universal sources, they tend to diverge rather greatly from mainstream consensus. I wish people would stop being so ignorant about so-called conspiracy theorists, and I wish people were less predjudiced against them. Don't forget that Monsanto successfully faked and suppressed scientific evidence for years ('the scientific community never lies', eh?), and the biggest tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of the 2000s was that the US government was spying on its citizens. BTW, I'm not a flat earther.

ssklash 7y ago
"they tend to diverge rather greatly from mainstream consensus." How is that consensus arrived at? Science. Many may appear to apply the scientific method, but simply reject anything that doesn't confirm their prior beliefs. Science discovered the earth was round and put a man on the moon. Rejecting that, or "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science. They can use science to work out things, and use it to debunk their own theories. They don't because their beliefs are born out of social and political factors. But the result is a society in which science is trusted less, and that is bad for all of us. A close relative is incredibly deep into conspiracy theories, so I like to think I understand their thinking quite well. There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. The NSA spying on us was an actual conspiracy. A fake moon landing is a conspiracy theory. The existence of a certain number of real conspiracies doesn't give any more weight to other conspiracy theories. tldr: Conspiracy theories are bad and hurt society by weakening science.
- ColanR 7y ago
  "science" is the enactment of the scientific method, which involves hypotheses and Ockham's Razor. > "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science There is no sense in which this is true. Have you ever gone to a doctor for a second opinion? Peer review itself is based on "questioning the sources" of an article. In my example, the questioning is extended to whole fields of study, or groups of scientists. And my real world example, Monsanto, is exactly why such larger categories of sources should be questioned. > There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. No, there isn't. The only difference is in the amount of information available. Many people found the US surveilance conspiracy compelling, at a level of information it sounds like you would have disparaged. That makes them perceptive, not anti-scientific. TLDR: mistrust is often well-placed, and those who believe the scientific community is above question are naive.