5 ms·

> The proposition that this was the case, is what I consider the actual most interesting hypothesis most likely to be false >Probably the esteemed reader has n

> The proposition that this was the case, is what I consider the actual most interesting hypothesis most likely to be false >Probably the esteemed reader has noticed by now that I am no true believer in the Silurian hypothesis, but I like to entertain it This kind of speculation has always stimulated my imagination. Unfortunately, the era of "fact-check" and truthiness has spawned a class of professional debunkers. This creates space for opportunist trolls to take the contrarian position. At one point there were those who engaged in debates over flat-earth for the sake of honing rhetorical skills. Today adults crusade against these absurdities without the slightest inkling of self-irony. Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. We haven't entirely lost the ability to have stimulating conversations about Silurians, Atlanteans or other improbable fantasy scenarios, but the trend is approaching. It feels like an indictment of the pop-materialist world view, mass media control structures or just our current era of Internet. Perhaps other posters can point to the underlying causes.

Nursie 2y ago
> Today adults crusade against these absurdities without the slightest inkling of self-irony. > Perhaps other posters can point to the underlying causes. It's because a lot of the flat-earthers out there on the internet actually believe it. It's no longer an amusing discourse, fun little game or intellectual pursuit for the high-minded playful contrarian, it has transitioned to an actual conspiracy theory with actual adherents. > Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. As it should be, given the above. It has become part of the wider conspiracy-sphere alongside chemtrails, 9/11 'truth' and all the other crap. It's no longer a sign of high intelligence or curiosity when someone brings it up, if it ever was. Compare "BirdsArentReal", though honestly I expect that eventually to go the same way.
- varelse 2y ago
  [dead]
jdthedisciple 2y ago
> Atlanteans > Improbable fantasy You mean as improbable and fantastical as the ancient Troy? Oh right it turned out to actually exist, after much ridicule of its idea! If anything, this kind of closed-mindedness is part of the problem. Dismissing the abundant evidence for Atlantis is hindering our progress of finding it at best.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > You mean as improbable and fantastical as the ancient Troy? > Oh right it turned out to actually exist, after much ridicule of its idea! There is a missing step in your logic. Present facts and they will be believed. Much of the ancient history of the human species is in flux, and specific fields of archaeology get upended regularly. I will believe in Atlantis, or Thule, or whatever, when there are proofs. In the meantime it’s a fantasy dreamt by ancient Greeks, opportunistically repurposed to justify behaviours ranging from the mundane to war crimes. > If anything, this kind of closed-mindedness is part of the problem. Come on. The fact that knowledge evolves does not mean that everything we believe is false right now will be proved at some point. Some things are just false.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    This comment rubs me the wrong way. The fundamental error for conspiracy-theory types is to confuse "unproven" as "probably true". It's basically the same error when naively wielding the scientific method so as to conflate "unproven" and "disproven". > I will believe in Atlantis, or Thule, or whatever, when there are proofs. In the meantime it’s a fantasy dreamt by ancient Greeks, opportunistically repurposed The appropriate attitude for scientists is agnosticism, but this hints that you already have your preferred answer. Skepticism should cut both ways. Logically, if you'd have trouble proving the existence of our own contemporary cities after the passage of geological time, then you'd likely have trouble with any other cities. And for archaeology specifically, new discoveries happen all the time, more frequently than say fundamental physics, so more humility also seems appropriate. Atlantis in particular might be fraught with baggage, but as another example, scholars are still undecided about whether the hanging gardens of Babylon (one of the wonders of the ancient world) actually existed, where they were exactly, or if they were always legendary. Do you have a strong preference for that too, or does the change in context also change your process/preferences for establishing ontologic / epistemic status there? > Come on. The fact that knowledge evolves does not mean that everything we believe is false right now will be proved at some point. Some things are just false. Again, things are false that are proven false. Unproven things are just that, unproven, unless they are categorically impossible. Obligatory "I like science and am not a flat-earther" disclaimer, but science (or those claiming to speak for it) will have to occasionally accept well-intentioned criticism as well as dish it out. The best way to respond to a cult-like following of misinformation is not to build a cult-like following for science.
kergonath 2y ago
> Unfortunately, the era of "fact-check" and truthiness has spawned a class of professional debunkers. This is a reaction to the “alternative facts” and the waves of general bullshit. > At one point there were those who engaged in debates over flat-earth for the sake of honing rhetorical skills. It’s one thing to engage in debates with your mates; it’s another to be subjected to a constant barrage of misinformation. Also, a couple of my mates from the “just asking rhetorical questions” period went full conspiracy theorists after a decade or so. I am less and less inclined to think that they were playing the devil’s advocates even back then. > Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. Well, yeah. It’s the dumbest, most falsifiable of the stupid conspiracy theories, mixed in with a solid dose of religious fundamentalist. It’s not just games, at least not for everyone. Far too many people take it seriously, so it is unreasonable to act like it’s all fun and games. Conspiracy theory is a self-reinforcing loop and people primed for this sort of thing do jump onto the next one without much critical thinking. > We haven't entirely lost the ability to have stimulating conversations about Silurians, Atlanteans or other improbable fantasy scenarios, but the trend is approaching. Fantasy is fantasy. This is not it. If you want to write a book about whatever thing you can think of, then have at it. The problem is when a fairy tale about aliens becomes gospel. So, if you don’t want to be debunked, don’t present fantasies as established facts.
- brabel 2y ago
  > Conspiracy theory is a self-reinforcing loop and people primed for this sort of thing do jump onto the next one without much critical thinking. Just the other day someone posted on a social network that they believe the war going on in Ukraine is "fake". I believe they used the word "Psyop". They claim they do not see any footage of the war, unlike the war in Israel, so it must be fake. So, I posted links to footage of several battles, which are very easy to find even on Youtube, and linked to one of the many "mappers" who post map update videos of the changes in the frontlines daily, which also always include plenty of footage of battles (usually with a couple of weeks delay given that videos from the battles that are still going on are highly sensitive as the military can use them in their favour). The person still denied that those things prove anything, and doubled down by saying the footage just proves their point that the war is not killing a million people (the one-million dead figure seems to be circulating in part of the media in the USA. I believe that's a high estimate , but still realistic when thousands of soldiers seem to be dying on both sides every day, and the war is approaching 3 years already). It's incredible to me someone that seems like a real person who appears to participate in politics locally (looking at their profile, they are highly politically engaged in Texas with the Republican Party) could just dismiss obvious evidence like that just because it does not support some bizarre belief that they formed... but this seems to be really common these days!
lmm 2y ago
> It feels like an indictment of the pop-materialist world view, mass media control structures or just our current era of Internet. Or maybe a triumph thereof? If people now care about what's true and dislike spreading interesting falsehoods, isn't that a good thing?
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  There are a few related responses in this thread. >Or maybe a triumph thereof? Losing the ability to describe the Silurian hypothesis or other improbable ideas without prescribing them as objective truths doesn't feel like a triumph. The inability to have a discussion without a pop-materialist crusader interjecting, "But it isn't real!!!" feels like a hindrance. Flat Earth was just one example to illustrate the trend. Clearly it triggered posters to sneer at disfavored out-groups. >It’s the dumbest, most falsifiable of the stupid conspiracy theories, mixed in with a solid dose of religious fundamentalist. It’s not just games, at least not for everyone. Far too many people take it seriously... So we should accept this trend and appeal to the lowest common denominator, because some heretics might believe the wrong thing? If nothing else, we should appreciate that the religious types describe their world in terms of faith. There's no slight of hand in their presuppositions. They know when they are accepting presuppositions on faith. From my side, one of the biggest criticisms of some the fundamentalists would be their intolerance of differing world views. The above quote is no better in that regard. >...don’t present fantasies as established facts. Again, there's an important distinction between prescribing something as an objective truth and describing it for the sake of discussion. Losing the ability to do the latter because some are unable to appreciate the distinction lowers the bar. Forbidding an entire class of hypotheticals because the hoi polloi might not appreciate the distinction is an exercise in paternalism. Although the paternalism feels less than genuine in this case. Equally likely that tribalistic ulterior motives are at play. Consider found-footage horror films or reality TV. Clearly there is a value in presenting the fictional as real. Would we demand disclaimers to protect the public? If that isn't absurd enough, consider that some regard explicitly fictional events and locations from Marvel films as real. >Americans think Wakanda and Zamunda are real places https://www.citizen.co.za/entertainment/celebrity-news/americans-think-wakanda-and-zamunda-are-real/ https://www.citizen.co.za/entertainment/celebrity-news/ameri... If we follow this line of reasoning, even pop-culture hasn't lowered the bar enough for truthiness to prevail. >> Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. >As it should be, given the above. It has become part of the wider conspiracy-sphere Perhaps instead of lowering the bar to protect the public from what posters here describe as unacceptable beliefs, we should raise the bar. Perhaps we shouldn't be using pejoratives or sneering at others. Instead we should seek to have stimulating discussions, question our own preconceptions and recognize that HN exists within its own bubble. Otherwise, what is the point? >And then surprised again how quickly they drop it if the belief becomes goes out of fashion and fails to signal in-group membership for whichever bubble
simiones 2y ago
> At one point there were those who engaged in debates over flat-earth for the sake of honing rhetorical skills. Do you have any proof that modern flat earthers were ever anything but a silly conspiracy group? The history I know of is of bizarre little flat earth cult groups denying basic science like this, and people outside their bubbles being amazed that they are not being sarcastic when encountering them in the wild. Denying basic knowledge known since the ancient greeks or earlier is absurd to engage with.
varelse 2y ago
[dead]

Nursie 2y ago

> Today adults crusade against these absurdities without the slightest inkling of self-irony. > Perhaps other posters can point to the underlying causes. It's because a lot of the flat-earthers out there on the internet actually believe it. It's no longer an amusing discourse, fun little game or intellectual pursuit for the high-minded playful contrarian, it has transitioned to an actual conspiracy theory with actual adherents. > Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. As it should be, given the above. It has become part of the wider conspiracy-sphere alongside chemtrails, 9/11 'truth' and all the other crap. It's no longer a sign of high intelligence or curiosity when someone brings it up, if it ever was. Compare "BirdsArentReal", though honestly I expect that eventually to go the same way.

varelse 2y ago
[dead]

jdthedisciple 2y ago

> Atlanteans > Improbable fantasy You mean as improbable and fantastical as the ancient Troy? Oh right it turned out to actually exist, after much ridicule of its idea! If anything, this kind of closed-mindedness is part of the problem. Dismissing the abundant evidence for Atlantis is hindering our progress of finding it at best.

kergonath 2y ago
> You mean as improbable and fantastical as the ancient Troy? > Oh right it turned out to actually exist, after much ridicule of its idea! There is a missing step in your logic. Present facts and they will be believed. Much of the ancient history of the human species is in flux, and specific fields of archaeology get upended regularly. I will believe in Atlantis, or Thule, or whatever, when there are proofs. In the meantime it’s a fantasy dreamt by ancient Greeks, opportunistically repurposed to justify behaviours ranging from the mundane to war crimes. > If anything, this kind of closed-mindedness is part of the problem. Come on. The fact that knowledge evolves does not mean that everything we believe is false right now will be proved at some point. Some things are just false.
- photonthug 2y ago
  This comment rubs me the wrong way. The fundamental error for conspiracy-theory types is to confuse "unproven" as "probably true". It's basically the same error when naively wielding the scientific method so as to conflate "unproven" and "disproven". > I will believe in Atlantis, or Thule, or whatever, when there are proofs. In the meantime it’s a fantasy dreamt by ancient Greeks, opportunistically repurposed The appropriate attitude for scientists is agnosticism, but this hints that you already have your preferred answer. Skepticism should cut both ways. Logically, if you'd have trouble proving the existence of our own contemporary cities after the passage of geological time, then you'd likely have trouble with any other cities. And for archaeology specifically, new discoveries happen all the time, more frequently than say fundamental physics, so more humility also seems appropriate. Atlantis in particular might be fraught with baggage, but as another example, scholars are still undecided about whether the hanging gardens of Babylon (one of the wonders of the ancient world) actually existed, where they were exactly, or if they were always legendary. Do you have a strong preference for that too, or does the change in context also change your process/preferences for establishing ontologic / epistemic status there? > Come on. The fact that knowledge evolves does not mean that everything we believe is false right now will be proved at some point. Some things are just false. Again, things are false that are proven false. Unproven things are just that, unproven, unless they are categorically impossible. Obligatory "I like science and am not a flat-earther" disclaimer, but science (or those claiming to speak for it) will have to occasionally accept well-intentioned criticism as well as dish it out. The best way to respond to a cult-like following of misinformation is not to build a cult-like following for science.

kergonath 2y ago

> Unfortunately, the era of "fact-check" and truthiness has spawned a class of professional debunkers. This is a reaction to the “alternative facts” and the waves of general bullshit. > At one point there were those who engaged in debates over flat-earth for the sake of honing rhetorical skills. It’s one thing to engage in debates with your mates; it’s another to be subjected to a constant barrage of misinformation. Also, a couple of my mates from the “just asking rhetorical questions” period went full conspiracy theorists after a decade or so. I am less and less inclined to think that they were playing the devil’s advocates even back then. > Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. Well, yeah. It’s the dumbest, most falsifiable of the stupid conspiracy theories, mixed in with a solid dose of religious fundamentalist. It’s not just games, at least not for everyone. Far too many people take it seriously, so it is unreasonable to act like it’s all fun and games. Conspiracy theory is a self-reinforcing loop and people primed for this sort of thing do jump onto the next one without much critical thinking. > We haven't entirely lost the ability to have stimulating conversations about Silurians, Atlanteans or other improbable fantasy scenarios, but the trend is approaching. Fantasy is fantasy. This is not it. If you want to write a book about whatever thing you can think of, then have at it. The problem is when a fairy tale about aliens becomes gospel. So, if you don’t want to be debunked, don’t present fantasies as established facts.

brabel 2y ago
> Conspiracy theory is a self-reinforcing loop and people primed for this sort of thing do jump onto the next one without much critical thinking. Just the other day someone posted on a social network that they believe the war going on in Ukraine is "fake". I believe they used the word "Psyop". They claim they do not see any footage of the war, unlike the war in Israel, so it must be fake. So, I posted links to footage of several battles, which are very easy to find even on Youtube, and linked to one of the many "mappers" who post map update videos of the changes in the frontlines daily, which also always include plenty of footage of battles (usually with a couple of weeks delay given that videos from the battles that are still going on are highly sensitive as the military can use them in their favour). The person still denied that those things prove anything, and doubled down by saying the footage just proves their point that the war is not killing a million people (the one-million dead figure seems to be circulating in part of the media in the USA. I believe that's a high estimate , but still realistic when thousands of soldiers seem to be dying on both sides every day, and the war is approaching 3 years already). It's incredible to me someone that seems like a real person who appears to participate in politics locally (looking at their profile, they are highly politically engaged in Texas with the Republican Party) could just dismiss obvious evidence like that just because it does not support some bizarre belief that they formed... but this seems to be really common these days!

lmm 2y ago

> It feels like an indictment of the pop-materialist world view, mass media control structures or just our current era of Internet. Or maybe a triumph thereof? If people now care about what's true and dislike spreading interesting falsehoods, isn't that a good thing?

palmfacehn 2y ago
There are a few related responses in this thread. >Or maybe a triumph thereof? Losing the ability to describe the Silurian hypothesis or other improbable ideas without prescribing them as objective truths doesn't feel like a triumph. The inability to have a discussion without a pop-materialist crusader interjecting, "But it isn't real!!!" feels like a hindrance. Flat Earth was just one example to illustrate the trend. Clearly it triggered posters to sneer at disfavored out-groups. >It’s the dumbest, most falsifiable of the stupid conspiracy theories, mixed in with a solid dose of religious fundamentalist. It’s not just games, at least not for everyone. Far too many people take it seriously... So we should accept this trend and appeal to the lowest common denominator, because some heretics might believe the wrong thing? If nothing else, we should appreciate that the religious types describe their world in terms of faith. There's no slight of hand in their presuppositions. They know when they are accepting presuppositions on faith. From my side, one of the biggest criticisms of some the fundamentalists would be their intolerance of differing world views. The above quote is no better in that regard. >...don’t present fantasies as established facts. Again, there's an important distinction between prescribing something as an objective truth and describing it for the sake of discussion. Losing the ability to do the latter because some are unable to appreciate the distinction lowers the bar. Forbidding an entire class of hypotheticals because the hoi polloi might not appreciate the distinction is an exercise in paternalism. Although the paternalism feels less than genuine in this case. Equally likely that tribalistic ulterior motives are at play. Consider found-footage horror films or reality TV. Clearly there is a value in presenting the fictional as real. Would we demand disclaimers to protect the public? If that isn't absurd enough, consider that some regard explicitly fictional events and locations from Marvel films as real. >Americans think Wakanda and Zamunda are real places https://www.citizen.co.za/entertainment/celebrity-news/americans-think-wakanda-and-zamunda-are-real/ https://www.citizen.co.za/entertainment/celebrity-news/ameri... If we follow this line of reasoning, even pop-culture hasn't lowered the bar enough for truthiness to prevail. >> Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN. >As it should be, given the above. It has become part of the wider conspiracy-sphere Perhaps instead of lowering the bar to protect the public from what posters here describe as unacceptable beliefs, we should raise the bar. Perhaps we shouldn't be using pejoratives or sneering at others. Instead we should seek to have stimulating discussions, question our own preconceptions and recognize that HN exists within its own bubble. Otherwise, what is the point? >And then surprised again how quickly they drop it if the belief becomes goes out of fashion and fails to signal in-group membership for whichever bubble

simiones 2y ago

> At one point there were those who engaged in debates over flat-earth for the sake of honing rhetorical skills. Do you have any proof that modern flat earthers were ever anything but a silly conspiracy group? The history I know of is of bizarre little flat earth cult groups denying basic science like this, and people outside their bubbles being amazed that they are not being sarcastic when encountering them in the wild. Denying basic knowledge known since the ancient greeks or earlier is absurd to engage with.

varelse 2y ago

[dead]