3 ms·

It's an interesting thought exercise to take some belief and ask yourself how you know, and asking until you get to some first principles or axioms or articles

It's an interesting thought exercise to take some belief and ask yourself how you know, and asking until you get to some first principles or axioms or articles of faith. Part of that exercise could include coming up with plausible alternate explanations for what you perceive. Flat earth is just a ridiculous version of such a thought experiment. It's a good exercise to make sure your understanding of the world around you is based on some consistent logic and not faith. Those who reject the idea of the earth being flat just because "science tells us" have no intellectual high ground over devout flat earthers, if they exist

jimsimmons 5y ago
Exactly. Believing in narrated science is no different than believing the mumbo jumbo they throw at you in scifi movies. For me the halting problem seems like common sense / basic science but it’s not for everybody. That’s where we need to recognise that what’s obvious or basic to us isn’t so for others. And that is a good thing!
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
I actually love flat earthers BECAUSE it forces me to actually think about how "I Know" the world is round. I bet a majority of people who are anti-flat earthers could not actually "prove" the earth is round without immediately appealing to authority. I've talked to flat earthers, (both probably real and some probably trolling), and it can be a fun intellectual exercise to debate.
- dools 5y ago
  You are allowed to appeal to authority. The "Argument from Authority" fallacy only applies when you appeal to a false authority, such as listening to your yoga instructor's opinions on vaccination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - GolangProject 5y ago
    There are clear cases where "true authorities", however defined, have been wrong about all kinds of subjects, so the fallacy still applies. If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists, you cannot justify that belief as strongly as someone who can argue from first principles or a clear chain of evidence. The appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious, but it's more likely to be so.
    - thfuran 5y ago
      If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists because you lack such expertise yourself, you're probably going to be wrong a lot less often when you appeal to authority than when you decide to disagree with them simply because experts are fallible.
      - GolangProject 5y ago
        That may well be true, depending on the quality of experts and specialists in your society (and assuming they aren't generally serving vested interests that could skew their views), but, epistemologically, you can't prove it without further appeals to authority. So it's experts all the way down!
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    People on HN tend to hate appeals to scientific authority, but you are right. Our resources for obtaining out own knowledge and expertise are limited, and trusting other experts is a useful heuristic that, while imperfect, is more effective than alternatives. Anyone who claims they have the requisite expertise and resources to verify most scientific facts on their own is lying.
  - version_five 5y ago
    I don't think you or the replies to your comment are addressing the parent point. It's not a game where something is "allowed" or not. They are saying that they suspect most people would not be able to themselves demonstrate that the earth is round, and that their argumentation would end up relying on faith. Whether such reliance is "allowed" is irrelevant (This made me think of a kind of inverse example that came up recently: I had made a point in an online discussion and offered an argument for it in my comment. Someone replied and said they looked up what I was talking about and didn't see anything about what I'd mentioned, and so didn't accept it. The disagreement was not about the merits of the argument, but that they couldn't find that argument anywhere, and so apparently instead of considering it, they just rejected it as invalid. I've seen more variations of that recently, the whole "citation needed" thing, where people think that an "authority" is automatically necessary vs just thinking about what they were told and deciding if it does or doesn't make sense)
- buttercraft 5y ago
  I get what you're saying, but do you really need to "prove" it in this case? I mean, assume that the Earth is flat, and then think through the consequences. It requires a long-running, global conspiracy at all levels of society. And all to hide the fact from... whom? Edit to clarify: even if you can't "prove" it directly, you can probably show that it would have effects you do not observe.
jltsiren 5y ago
Most of the time, "science tells us" means "this question is not sufficiently interesting or relevant, and human life is several orders of magnitude too short to question everything". We all resort to "trusting the experts" in almost every action we take, because there are no feasible alternatives. Believing in flat earth is basically a result of poorly calibrated trust heuristics. People may believe in it due to lack of education, for social/political/ideological reasons, or because they are contrarians. Or due to a random chance because the question is not particularly relevant to them.
threatofrain 5y ago
Faith and trust are subtly different things, and trust is both a skill and talent. When a poker player makes bets, one of the things they do is ask how much they trust a reading of the situation, and often times that's the best they've got. A poker player also does not rely on axioms because almost all propositions they could come up with would have no answer. For most people, life is more like poker than math.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  That's not really how high level poker is played -- it actually is all about the math. That's why top poker players are ALSO top players online where you can't see the other players.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    No, it's not all about math, and there is a disparity between online play and real life tournament play. If poker were all math then we'd see far more mastery by poker bots beyond just heads-up play. If the only thing you have in your pocket is math, then you are missing out on advantages. In online poker players may purchase large databases of player histories. But constructing advantages from player history is ultimately a psychological theory notwithstanding whether math is employed. The reason is because mathematical axioms do not provide insight into how player history should translate into player futures.

jimsimmons 5y ago

Exactly. Believing in narrated science is no different than believing the mumbo jumbo they throw at you in scifi movies. For me the halting problem seems like common sense / basic science but it’s not for everybody. That’s where we need to recognise that what’s obvious or basic to us isn’t so for others. And that is a good thing!

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

I actually love flat earthers BECAUSE it forces me to actually think about how "I Know" the world is round. I bet a majority of people who are anti-flat earthers could not actually "prove" the earth is round without immediately appealing to authority. I've talked to flat earthers, (both probably real and some probably trolling), and it can be a fun intellectual exercise to debate.

dools 5y ago
You are allowed to appeal to authority. The "Argument from Authority" fallacy only applies when you appeal to a false authority, such as listening to your yoga instructor's opinions on vaccination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- GolangProject 5y ago
  There are clear cases where "true authorities", however defined, have been wrong about all kinds of subjects, so the fallacy still applies. If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists, you cannot justify that belief as strongly as someone who can argue from first principles or a clear chain of evidence. The appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious, but it's more likely to be so.
  - thfuran 5y ago
    If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists because you lack such expertise yourself, you're probably going to be wrong a lot less often when you appeal to authority than when you decide to disagree with them simply because experts are fallible.
    - GolangProject 5y ago
      That may well be true, depending on the quality of experts and specialists in your society (and assuming they aren't generally serving vested interests that could skew their views), but, epistemologically, you can't prove it without further appeals to authority. So it's experts all the way down!
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  People on HN tend to hate appeals to scientific authority, but you are right. Our resources for obtaining out own knowledge and expertise are limited, and trusting other experts is a useful heuristic that, while imperfect, is more effective than alternatives. Anyone who claims they have the requisite expertise and resources to verify most scientific facts on their own is lying.
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't think you or the replies to your comment are addressing the parent point. It's not a game where something is "allowed" or not. They are saying that they suspect most people would not be able to themselves demonstrate that the earth is round, and that their argumentation would end up relying on faith. Whether such reliance is "allowed" is irrelevant (This made me think of a kind of inverse example that came up recently: I had made a point in an online discussion and offered an argument for it in my comment. Someone replied and said they looked up what I was talking about and didn't see anything about what I'd mentioned, and so didn't accept it. The disagreement was not about the merits of the argument, but that they couldn't find that argument anywhere, and so apparently instead of considering it, they just rejected it as invalid. I've seen more variations of that recently, the whole "citation needed" thing, where people think that an "authority" is automatically necessary vs just thinking about what they were told and deciding if it does or doesn't make sense)
buttercraft 5y ago
I get what you're saying, but do you really need to "prove" it in this case? I mean, assume that the Earth is flat, and then think through the consequences. It requires a long-running, global conspiracy at all levels of society. And all to hide the fact from... whom? Edit to clarify: even if you can't "prove" it directly, you can probably show that it would have effects you do not observe.

jltsiren 5y ago

Most of the time, "science tells us" means "this question is not sufficiently interesting or relevant, and human life is several orders of magnitude too short to question everything". We all resort to "trusting the experts" in almost every action we take, because there are no feasible alternatives. Believing in flat earth is basically a result of poorly calibrated trust heuristics. People may believe in it due to lack of education, for social/political/ideological reasons, or because they are contrarians. Or due to a random chance because the question is not particularly relevant to them.

threatofrain 5y ago

Faith and trust are subtly different things, and trust is both a skill and talent. When a poker player makes bets, one of the things they do is ask how much they trust a reading of the situation, and often times that's the best they've got. A poker player also does not rely on axioms because almost all propositions they could come up with would have no answer. For most people, life is more like poker than math.

DarylZero 5y ago
That's not really how high level poker is played -- it actually is all about the math. That's why top poker players are ALSO top players online where you can't see the other players.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  No, it's not all about math, and there is a disparity between online play and real life tournament play. If poker were all math then we'd see far more mastery by poker bots beyond just heads-up play. If the only thing you have in your pocket is math, then you are missing out on advantages. In online poker players may purchase large databases of player histories. But constructing advantages from player history is ultimately a psychological theory notwithstanding whether math is employed. The reason is because mathematical axioms do not provide insight into how player history should translate into player futures.