4 ms·

Controversial issues aren't about logic or arguments. They're about sociopolitical issues, economics, and who has the most effective marketing plan. I'd really

Controversial issues aren't about logic or arguments. They're about sociopolitical issues, economics, and who has the most effective marketing plan. I'd really love to see a site that tries to dispassionately explain why the Flat Earth movement exists (hint: it's probably not because a bunch of people really believe the Earth is flat) instead of just berating people for being dumb and wrong. You will never convince anyone of anything by calling them stupid.

blablabla123 6y ago
On the other hand it has been proven that the earth is not flat thousands of years ago. The effort to do so is surprisingly limited. Basically you need to dig a hole in the ground and reason about the angles of the sun rays if I remember correctly.
jacobmischka 6y ago
This exactly. No attempt at forcing logical or unbiased discourse will ever work, because people simply are not persuaded by logical argument, regardless of how many irrefutable facts are presented. It's a laudable and understandable goal to try to fix online discourse using clever tech, but I am highly skeptical it will ever work, because people simply do not care to have their minds changed. I'm unsure what the actual solution to this, if there ever will be one. Improving population education as a whole seems to me to be the only way, but I fear that even if possible that will take so long that it will no longer matter. I legitimately fear that ultimately human beings are not evolved enough to be able to effectively manage the effortless global communication systems that we've developed.
jl2718 6y ago
To me, the flat earth movement is about scientific epistemiology in the form of advancing the most ridiculous argument devoid of social consequence. It’s basically the same thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The real question is whether facts and explanations are declared by an authority, or whether they must be proven laboriously to each individual prior to acceptance. If flat earth cannot be easily disproven to an individual, imagine what else we may have been led to believe on the authority of a third-grade textbook or a 30-second news report. I think their message, assuming the best of them, is not that we should accept ridiculous ideas like flat earth, but that we should be less certain about many things that we really don’t know very well.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Wouldn’t there be a lot better examples to use, instead of one that is trivially disprovable? Or is that the point - how many critics of the FES have never done the experimentation themselves? In a way, this feels like a DOS attack. We don’t have the time or ability to run our own experiments on things that matter.
- stephenr 6y ago
  Comparing flat earthers to pastafarians is a bit rich. Scientologists would be a closer match.
Jonovono 6y ago
The flat earth doc (Behind the Curve) made a point that stuck with me. We are all flat earthers in some way in our life, where we don't accurately look at reality. I'm sure everyone can find something in their life where they are a 'flat earther'.
lhorie 6y ago
My understanding is that there are a few different factors: For many of them, there's something to be gained (e.g. financially via a youtube channel, or even just karma points), which keeps engagement from fizzling out There's also the age old cultism phenomenon: people want to be part of something, because it feeds their ego somehow (e.g. "pff, look at those sheep") and/or because of some sense of community ("oh wow, I never thought so many people thought like me") And the thread that unifies everything is the belief they are scientifically correct because they are applying empirical observation. Of course, the unfortunate gap is that they don't truly understand how to use/interpret the tools of the scientific method (e.g. they may not know how to empirically derive physics equations from experiments, or they may not understand concepts like falsibiability, or even account for blind spots in "common sense" such as why are tides a thing, etc)

blablabla123 6y ago

On the other hand it has been proven that the earth is not flat thousands of years ago. The effort to do so is surprisingly limited. Basically you need to dig a hole in the ground and reason about the angles of the sun rays if I remember correctly.

jacobmischka 6y ago

This exactly. No attempt at forcing logical or unbiased discourse will ever work, because people simply are not persuaded by logical argument, regardless of how many irrefutable facts are presented. It's a laudable and understandable goal to try to fix online discourse using clever tech, but I am highly skeptical it will ever work, because people simply do not care to have their minds changed. I'm unsure what the actual solution to this, if there ever will be one. Improving population education as a whole seems to me to be the only way, but I fear that even if possible that will take so long that it will no longer matter. I legitimately fear that ultimately human beings are not evolved enough to be able to effectively manage the effortless global communication systems that we've developed.

jl2718 6y ago

To me, the flat earth movement is about scientific epistemiology in the form of advancing the most ridiculous argument devoid of social consequence. It’s basically the same thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The real question is whether facts and explanations are declared by an authority, or whether they must be proven laboriously to each individual prior to acceptance. If flat earth cannot be easily disproven to an individual, imagine what else we may have been led to believe on the authority of a third-grade textbook or a 30-second news report. I think their message, assuming the best of them, is not that we should accept ridiculous ideas like flat earth, but that we should be less certain about many things that we really don’t know very well.

edmundsauto 6y ago
Wouldn’t there be a lot better examples to use, instead of one that is trivially disprovable? Or is that the point - how many critics of the FES have never done the experimentation themselves? In a way, this feels like a DOS attack. We don’t have the time or ability to run our own experiments on things that matter.
stephenr 6y ago
Comparing flat earthers to pastafarians is a bit rich. Scientologists would be a closer match.

Jonovono 6y ago

The flat earth doc (Behind the Curve) made a point that stuck with me. We are all flat earthers in some way in our life, where we don't accurately look at reality. I'm sure everyone can find something in their life where they are a 'flat earther'.

lhorie 6y ago

My understanding is that there are a few different factors: For many of them, there's something to be gained (e.g. financially via a youtube channel, or even just karma points), which keeps engagement from fizzling out There's also the age old cultism phenomenon: people want to be part of something, because it feeds their ego somehow (e.g. "pff, look at those sheep") and/or because of some sense of community ("oh wow, I never thought so many people thought like me") And the thread that unifies everything is the belief they are scientifically correct because they are applying empirical observation. Of course, the unfortunate gap is that they don't truly understand how to use/interpret the tools of the scientific method (e.g. they may not know how to empirically derive physics equations from experiments, or they may not understand concepts like falsibiability, or even account for blind spots in "common sense" such as why are tides a thing, etc)