Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

willpatrick.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#111

Post by hhas01 »

lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

“convincing-sounding arguments”

Maybe to people who don’t know any better. To anyone with basic knowledge of the subject and crib notes on common logical fallacies, not so much.

I mean, the ancient Greeks figured out the Earth was spherical over 2000 years ago. Good grief; Eratosthenes even worked out its approximate circumference with nothing but a road atlas and a twig! So if flat Earthers can’t even bring themselves to reproduce that ancient experiment themselves, it’s only because they don’t want to see the answer.

Frankly, it’s more useful to dissect the reasons why such people retain and defend such beliefs in the face of openly available evidence. And dollars to donuts you’ll find a manipulatively dishonest, self-serving paranoid narcisissm at heart: that consuming need to believe themselves powerful and clever, and in Control.

As Francis Bacon once observed: Knowledge itself is Power. He did not specify that it had to be right. And that’s ultimately all it’s about. Just one more Means to Power.

As thinking creatures go, they are all so very flat and squalid.

(See also Moon Hoaxers, 911 Truthers, Qanoners, and every other ego-masturbating skinsack of Fail that wastes their all-too-brief potential to be anything greater than just a future worm’s dinner.)

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#112

Post by lisper »

simplify wrote: post #67
lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

> So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) How does it lead to that? I feel like that's a false assumption that many people make, religious or not.

Do you have a theory of purpose that is consistent with the laws of physics? Because that would be a major breakthrough. All of the evidence (AFAICT) indicates that nature is utterly indifferent to our existence.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#113

Post by apocalypstyx »

umvi wrote: post #22

I used to be a flat earther. No, I didn't actually believe the earth was flat, but I loved the outrage it provoked and the attention I got when I told people I was a flat earther. I also enjoyed trying to defend my position and call out (valid) logical fallacies round earthers were making. It really forces you to improve your debate skills when you have to defend an impossible position. Lastly, there was a social asp…

Or perhaps this is exactly what belief is.

Maybe in fact you are the consummate true believer.

To possess something to the point it is the total sum of your knowledge, would that be belief? Or would that merely be a lack. No belief is required when there is no alternative.

So let us then imagine how many people 'believe' in exactly this same way about human rights or freedom or democracy, and perhaps suddenly the state of the world at any given time becomes much clearer.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#114

Post by lisper »

jfengel wrote: post #70
lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

I can't really find any word for "No amount of data is going to persuade them otherwise." than "idiot". They may be able to constrain their idiocy to certain domains -- after all the early history of the planet (whether 5,000 or 5 billion years ago) has no real effect on your daily life. But in my experience, it nonetheless creeps out to affect other areas of their life. YECs are often afflicted with other conspiracy…

> I can't really find any word for "No amount of data is going to persuade them otherwise." than "idiot".

That's because you find the data persuasive. They don't. That in and of itself does not make them idiots.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#115

Post by lisper »

natcombs wrote: post #65
lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

YEC is not closely related to Flat earthers. I know many YEC that refute flat earth theory completely. The overlap of the two is small, but maybe there are a few outspoken ones on Reddit (it’s always the outspoken ones isn’t it?)

They are more closely related than you think. Flat-earth is actually a natural conclusion from the assumption of Biblical inerrancy (e.g. 1Sm2:8, Mat4:8, Isa11:12).

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#116

Post by hhas01 »

umvi wrote: post #22

I used to be a flat earther. No, I didn't actually believe the earth was flat, but I loved the outrage it provoked and the attention I got when I told people I was a flat earther. I also enjoyed trying to defend my position and call out (valid) logical fallacies round earthers were making. It really forces you to improve your debate skills when you have to defend an impossible position. Lastly, there was a social asp…

At least there’s something to be said for your honesty now.

Though having both witnessed and perpetrated the very real human damage that dishonest/irrational/delusional belief systems can and will do, you’ll forgive me if I do not congratulate you on the rest.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#117

Post by baddox »

lisper wrote: post #110
baddox wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s still not a good explanation to say “humans must have some purpose, therefore this one very specific made-up thing must be true.” What about all the other made-up things which also purport to explain the purpose of humans? Explanations of this form are extremely easy to vary, which is why they are not good explanations.

But that only matters if you think that explanations are what matters. That is an assumption. That's the whole point: some people value purpose more than they value explanation .

> That's the whole point: some people value purpose more than they value explanation.

Sure, but I don't think the debate is over whether creationists derive a sense of purpose from their beliefs. I have no doubt that they do. You'd never need to discuss things like fossils or evolution or cosmology to determine whether one derives a sense of purpose from one's beliefs.

My assumption was that these debates are about the epistemological status of these claims, which is largely independent of whether one derives a sense of purpose.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#118

Post by lisper »

baddox wrote: post #117
lisper wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that only matters if you think that explanations are what matters. That is an assumption. That's the whole point: some people value purpose more than they value explanation .

> That's the whole point: some people value purpose more than they value explanation. Sure, but I don't think the debate is over whether creationists derive a sense of purpose from their beliefs. I have no doubt that they do. You'd never need to discuss things like fossils or evolution or cosmology to determine whether one derives a sense of purpose from one's beliefs. My assumption was that these debates are about t…

Yes, you're right. But by the time you get around to arguing about fossils your thought processes have already diverged beyond reconciliation. It's not because either of you are idiots, it's because you started from different foundational assumptions.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#119

Post by lm28469 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #109
lm28469 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I get your point, if there is a point or if you're trying to be sarcastic, could you elaborate ?

You appear to have equated depriving somebody of employment opportunities with disallowing them from living, and the opportunity to be employed somewhere with basic rights. In general, the two are not the same. And if they are in a given society, in this age, that society is in need of help. Nobody in a modern, healthy society with ample resources should have to work to be allowed to live.

Define "living". Sure you can "exist" without a job, maybe even afford rent in some countries like France or Germany (they give you something like 30% of the min wage for just being there), but I'd doubt many people would call that life.

In countries like the US or third world countries you're in for a pretty miserable existence if you don't have a job. I'm not saying it's good, but it's reality

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#120

Post by jfengel »

lisper wrote: post #114
jfengel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really find any word for "No amount of data is going to persuade them otherwise." than "idiot". They may be able to constrain their idiocy to certain domains -- after all the early history of the planet (whether 5,000 or 5 billion years ago) has no real effect on your daily life. But in my experience, it nonetheless creeps out to affect other areas of their life. YECs are often afflicted with other conspiracy…

> I can't really find any word for "No amount of data is going to persuade them otherwise." than "idiot". That's because you find the data persuasive. They don't. That in and of itself does not make them idiots.

It's not just that I find the data persuasive, but that I find data persuasive. They don't. They reject the notion of data when it doesn't suit them.

That makes them not merely wrong, but dangerous to me. They will go out of their way to make my life worse, without being able to judge the cost to themselves. Regardless of what derogatory name I choose to call it, our outlook is fundamentally at odds. They've shown repeatedly that they wish to use it to harm me, and my names for them are going to be negative.

Post reply on HN