3 ms·

Everyone can explain how we know that. The base of ships disappear before the mast from far away. You can see the tops of skyscrapers, but not the bottom, from

by feoren 3y ago

Everyone can explain how we know that. The base of ships disappear before the mast from far away. You can see the tops of skyscrapers, but not the bottom, from the right distance across a body of water. We have photos and video of the Earth. We've flown in planes. We can call up people in different latitudes and compare lengths of shadows or positions of the sun and stars. I'm guessing when you say they "can't explain how we know that", you're discounting photo and video evidence that they've seen; you're discounting the flight trajectory maps they see on planes; you're discounting the nature shows and documentaries they've watched; you're discounting the fact that any other explanation makes no fucking sense; you're discounting the history they learned about Magellan. There's no reason to say that none of that is evidence. They're not blindly following like sheep, they have an enormous body of evidence in front of them and there is no counter-evidence. Stop acting like they're stupid.

bee_rider 3y ago
I haven’t tried asking many people that, have you? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a noticeable population for whom that sort of example just didn’t come to mind. I don’t think they are stupid, we’re just naturally lazy about essentially meaningless questions that everybody knows the answer to already, in general.
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
You can't prove to us that "everyone" understands a thing simply by demonstrating that you understand that thing.
zmgsabst 3y ago
I think that quite reasonably, many just trust what someone told them — eg, of your answers: - trust someone’s photo/video - trust someone’s map - trust someone’s narrative in a video - “everyone else is just wrong!” - trust someone’s narrative about long ago I think it’s fascinating that your examples to drive home how ridiculous you find the question were all about how we just need to trust authorities. (Including you!) There’s nothing wrong with trusting people; I’m just pointing out that most people believe the Earth is round because they trust an authority, and not because they did any of the physical examples in your first paragraph personally. Or understand the logic of why that’s an example.
- feoren 3y ago
  > we just need to trust authorities. (Including you!) That's not actually what I'm saying at all. They're not putting 100% trust in one authority. They're putting a very small amount of trust in millions of others. It's nonsense to say that someone who has never independently replicated Eratosthenes's test doesn't really know the world is round. That's absolute nonsense. Of course they do. The individual tiny pieces of evidence -- yes, including maps and videos and pictures -- form a complete whole that can only be explained by a round Earth. The probability that millions of people are conspiring to deceive them is much much lower than the probability that we're all simulated brains in a twisted alien experiment, or other such crazy hypotheticals. Humans are capable of piecing together reality from millions of data points without needing a White Man In A Lab Coat to tell them. It is not irrational for someone to believe the Earth is round without being able to devise an experiment to prove it. These people are being logical in believing that, and walking around with your upturned nose telling them they're stupid because they can't "justify" their beliefs is not helping scientific literacy in the world.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Humans routinely believe wrong things, collectively, without it being a collective conspiracy to trick you. The false dichotomy you present (“they’re right or they’re lying!”) isn’t reflected in the real world — and it’s worth knowing that you’re depending on trust in authorities rather than direct evidence. > It is not irrational for someone to believe the Earth is round without being able to devise an experiment to prove it. And I never said it was: just that it’s something you believe based on trust in authorities, not because you can (personally) justify the belief. > These people are being logical in believing that, and walking around with your upturned nose telling them they're stupid because they can't "justify" their beliefs is not helping scientific literacy in the world. Pretending that belief in authorities without being able to explain the proof is the same as scientific literacy is what’s actually harming scientific literacy — and it’s a confusion many people of average capability engage in. Which was my original point.

by feoren 3y ago

bee_rider 3y ago

I haven’t tried asking many people that, have you? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a noticeable population for whom that sort of example just didn’t come to mind. I don’t think they are stupid, we’re just naturally lazy about essentially meaningless questions that everybody knows the answer to already, in general.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago

You can't prove to us that "everyone" understands a thing simply by demonstrating that you understand that thing.

zmgsabst 3y ago

I think that quite reasonably, many just trust what someone told them — eg, of your answers: - trust someone’s photo/video - trust someone’s map - trust someone’s narrative in a video - “everyone else is just wrong!” - trust someone’s narrative about long ago I think it’s fascinating that your examples to drive home how ridiculous you find the question were all about how we just need to trust authorities. (Including you!) There’s nothing wrong with trusting people; I’m just pointing out that most people believe the Earth is round because they trust an authority, and not because they did any of the physical examples in your first paragraph personally. Or understand the logic of why that’s an example.

feoren 3y ago
> we just need to trust authorities. (Including you!) That's not actually what I'm saying at all. They're not putting 100% trust in one authority. They're putting a very small amount of trust in millions of others. It's nonsense to say that someone who has never independently replicated Eratosthenes's test doesn't really know the world is round. That's absolute nonsense. Of course they do. The individual tiny pieces of evidence -- yes, including maps and videos and pictures -- form a complete whole that can only be explained by a round Earth. The probability that millions of people are conspiring to deceive them is much much lower than the probability that we're all simulated brains in a twisted alien experiment, or other such crazy hypotheticals. Humans are capable of piecing together reality from millions of data points without needing a White Man In A Lab Coat to tell them. It is not irrational for someone to believe the Earth is round without being able to devise an experiment to prove it. These people are being logical in believing that, and walking around with your upturned nose telling them they're stupid because they can't "justify" their beliefs is not helping scientific literacy in the world.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Humans routinely believe wrong things, collectively, without it being a collective conspiracy to trick you. The false dichotomy you present (“they’re right or they’re lying!”) isn’t reflected in the real world — and it’s worth knowing that you’re depending on trust in authorities rather than direct evidence. > It is not irrational for someone to believe the Earth is round without being able to devise an experiment to prove it. And I never said it was: just that it’s something you believe based on trust in authorities, not because you can (personally) justify the belief. > These people are being logical in believing that, and walking around with your upturned nose telling them they're stupid because they can't "justify" their beliefs is not helping scientific literacy in the world. Pretending that belief in authorities without being able to explain the proof is the same as scientific literacy is what’s actually harming scientific literacy — and it’s a confusion many people of average capability engage in. Which was my original point.