3 ms·

> Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduc

> Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Clearly there are professional journalists who are not adhering to the code of conduct. So clearly you will claim that they are not "real" journalists, and that journalists are only "real" journalists if they adhere to the code of conduct. But this doesn't stop anyone from claiming to be a journalist, getting paid to be a journalist, or being part of the professional organisation while completely ignoring the code of conduct (as so many do). > What we will have, oxygen deniers? They don't recognize oxygen? We need the wacky thinkers. Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Remember the story of Plate Tectonics (someone saw how S America and Africa fit together, put together a theory that continents moved, was derided as a crackpot from all corners of Academia, turned out to be right [0]). Having an Oxygen Denier around would be a good thing, not a bad thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the...

chii 5y ago
> Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Just because someone thinks of absurd stuff, doesn't mean this fixes groupthink. To combat groupthink requires critical analysis, and safety - that is, the group must allow for people who make different (but still logical) points that go against the grain. However, flat earthers do not fall into this category, because they are denying evidence, rather than imagining an alternative theory. Plate tectonics is different, since there's no evidence denying that theory! I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc). This requires work, and i feel many do not get taught nor learn themselves.
- kavalg 5y ago
  > I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc) Good luck with that. Even at the university where I teach this looks like an uphill battle.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  There was an article on HN recently about how science is moving past the scientific method by using models rather than testing hypotheses with experiments. I'm not sure I consider this "science", but still. There was no evidence for plate tectonics either, until they started looking for it. And, obviously, the burden was on the new hypothesis to prove itself. I'm not saying we should encourage Flat Earthers to present at Astronomy conferences. I'm saying we should not try to shut them up. That "safety" you're talking about has to be boundless, because if there are bounds then they will shrink. Are shrinking.

chii 5y ago

> Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Just because someone thinks of absurd stuff, doesn't mean this fixes groupthink. To combat groupthink requires critical analysis, and safety - that is, the group must allow for people who make different (but still logical) points that go against the grain. However, flat earthers do not fall into this category, because they are denying evidence, rather than imagining an alternative theory. Plate tectonics is different, since there's no evidence denying that theory! I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc). This requires work, and i feel many do not get taught nor learn themselves.

kavalg 5y ago
> I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc) Good luck with that. Even at the university where I teach this looks like an uphill battle.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
There was an article on HN recently about how science is moving past the scientific method by using models rather than testing hypotheses with experiments. I'm not sure I consider this "science", but still. There was no evidence for plate tectonics either, until they started looking for it. And, obviously, the burden was on the new hypothesis to prove itself. I'm not saying we should encourage Flat Earthers to present at Astronomy conferences. I'm saying we should not try to shut them up. That "safety" you're talking about has to be boundless, because if there are bounds then they will shrink. Are shrinking.