> If flat earthers could become geology university professors then the field would be invalidated instantly, that's exactly my point! Well then, better invalid

> If flat earthers could become geology university professors then the field would be invalidated instantly, that's exactly my point! Well then, better invalidate geology: > Kurt Patrick Wise (born August 1, 1959) is an American geologist, paleontologist,[1] and young Earth creationist who serves as the director of the Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. He writes in support of creationism and contributed to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise > Again the problem isn't that some people say wrong stuff, it's that you can spend your entire career saying fashionable bullshit that gets disproved over and over and face zero consequence in terms of academic reputation. When there are enough folks who believe a certain thing there can be a 'critical mass' for it to become self-sustaining so that there may be consequences from outside the bubble, but the folks in question simply ignore the external groups and live in their own echo chamber. The funding for this can continue because—in the case of economics which touches on (e.g.) tax policy—when there are billions of dollars floating around, and you can fund bullshit so that you get to make more billions and keep more of your billions, there will also be "support" for ideas: * https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examin... Why do we still hear about climate change not being real? Or that it's real, but not caused by humans? Is climatology a bullshit field? What consequences can there be when oil tycoons throw money at people to keep repeating the same message over and over? How many oil-funded think tanks are there that publish on climate change? Or billionaire-funded think tanks that publish on tax policy? One reason why you continue to hear about invalid ideas is because to some people truth is irrelevant, reality is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to them is "what can I get?" and they're willing to continue to throw money at getting what they want, and they don't care what is said as long as it gets results: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood * https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html Even medicine and biology has a bubble of folks that ignore reality: * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/13/rfk-jr-aaron-siri-polio https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/13/rfk-jr-aaron... * https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/health/aaron-siri-rfk-jr-vaccines.html https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/health... Here we are in late-2024-going-into-2025 and we're still "debating" the benefits of polio vaccines. You seem to think that the [Tt]ruth will overcome the [Ll]ies. Maybe. Eventually. But that is the optimistic take—and which I tend to lean towards as well—but I also recognize human psychology and human history, and know that humans can (and do) choose another path. There are plenty of things that true that people choose not to believe in or trust, even with the evidence staring them in the face. In fact, showing people evidence often prevents people from changing their minds and they makes them dig into their (invalid) beliefs more: * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722004396 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance * https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/ https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-b...