Who Thinks the Earth is Flat?

[maijipo]

Originally Posted by petrified

Trusting scientists. .... Were they not the ones that said the earth was the center of the universe?

And the one that said it wasn't. They build theory with the facts they have. Science is not static but each theory bring one more explanation and prepare the next step.

[Leo Ticheli]

Originally Posted by petrified

Trusting scientists. .... Were they not the ones that said the earth was the center of the universe?

I think the people who declared the Earth was the center of the universe were not scientists.

Fair winds,

Leo

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Benz

BTW Benz, almost everything you cite are facts that, while not easily confirmable by everyone, do rely on data that is open to analysis and investigation. It is not the same as simply relying on some untestable authority, or someone’s opinion. This is a false equivalence.

Depth soundings, evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, anthropogenic climate change, and the fact that the Earth is spherical, are all based on facts that are open to investigation. This is in contrast to statements which are untestable. This is why we differentiate between ideas based on fact vs those based on faith.

Mike,
While certainly the "facts" are open to investigation, how many people bother to investigate? Have you measured carbon samples in arctic ice for the last 10,000 years? Has anyone? Have you measured the extent of arctic sea ice for the last even 200 years, so that you can say unequivocally that "2017 is the lowest sea ice year ever."? To say: "On record" means very little in geological time, since records haven't been kept with any accuracy for very long.
So most people are taking these things on faith, and another thing they take on faith is the interpretation of the data. Some while back, data was interpreted wrong and everyone panicked about a hole in the ozone layer that turned out to be natural. Shoot, at one point, all the data showed that the earth was the center of the universe! Actually it didn't, but that's how scientists interpreted it. So what I question is not the data that exists so much (though some of that is suspect), but the "scientist's" interpretation of that data.
You should absolutely investigate everything before you believe it. And once you have yourself personally done so, I might pay attention to what you have to say. Or I may just want to find out for myself.[/QUOTE]

as to the sea ice heck the scientists can't even agree on the statement of 2017 being lower than any other year. Most agencies say 3rd lowest. 2016 was however agreed by the majority to be lowest on modern records.

[newhaul]

There is one important thing my grandmother told me many years ago and it makes more sense the older I get. " there are three things you never discuss with friends or family. Money, religion, or politics." To do so usually ends in an argument or worse a fight. "

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Leo Ticheli

I think the people who declared the Earth was the center of the universe were not scientists.

Sure they were!
Greek astronomers who could show you visual "proof" of a geocentric universe were considered scientists of their day. Their observations were careful and utilized the best technology of their time. Their math was actually quite sound- it just had all kinds of fudge factors to match the observations. This theory was accepted for more than a thousand years.

Those of us with fancy science degrees are not always skeptical enough, IMO. Last century, I spent a memorable day in class being taught by a famous professor in electrical engineering. The dude was involved in the first transistor, the story goes. That day we "proved" mathematically that the fastest data speed that will EVER be transmitted over an analog telephone line is about 3Kb/sec, because of the Nyquist limit. If you are not laughing yet, I should point out that today you can get about 100Mb/sec on a DSL modem over those same phone lines. That is about 33 THOUSAND TIMES the "speed limit" that we carefully calculated.

My point? Science evolves. Modern scientists are simply those who study (and sometimes advance) the CURRENT UNDERSTANDING of science.

Stay skeptical, my friends.
(and don't purchase any 2400 baud modems- pretty sure you can do better)

[gjordan]

People that said the earth was flat were scientists of the day, but if they had said anything else (or even doubted out loud) they would have been burned at the stake. It is somewhat similar today where if members of a certain political party say that climate change is real (and maybe our fault) will be burned by the complete cutting off of their campaign funds (which is death to a politician)." Alternative Facts" and fake news seem to be the new religion. Are we crazy enough to worship it???? Maybe!! ____Grant.

[Leo Ticheli]

A scientist is, by the simplest definition, a person who acquires knowledge to describe and predict the natural world with the scientific method. This should exclude those who reach their conclusions by other means, such as voices from burning bushes, the arrangement of the entrails of a chicken, the pronouncements of humans deemed to be infallible agents of gods, or texts thought to be inspired by a deity.

Others may enjoy different views of what a scientist is, but I sense the crux of the debate is what evidence do we accept as the best explanation of the world; I'm going with the rigorously challenged, replicated, and peer reviewed guys.

Fair winds and all the best of the season,

Leo

[williamtl]

Originally Posted by newhaul

There is one important thing my grandmother told me many years ago and it makes more sense the older I get. " there are three things you never discuss with friends or family. Money, religion, or politics." To do so usually ends in an argument or worse a fight. "

In my circles, it was sex, religion, and politics. But if you avoid these about all you have to talk about with folks is the weather.

We have lost the ability to discuss. It’s been traded for the ability to be right or if I can’t be right to yell louder than you so no one can hear you and think I may be wrong. And I certainly have to yell loud enough that no one on my tribe hears you lest they start to think differently.

Some of my best friends have very different views. Different to the point I can’t even relate to how they get to their point of view. But we keep discussing because it’s always learning for both of us. This is much more rewarding than sitting around listening to folks parrot the same thing without thought.

[jimbunyard]

That the earth is an oblate spheroid is fact, observable personally to any with the ability to make visual conformation (well, that it's a sphere is observable personally; to verify the oblateness takes some pretty sophisticated scientific observations...).

Biological evolution (as well as mineral, stellar, linguistic etc.) is a fact, again, observable by any individual with perceptual acuity and reasonably powerful scientific deductive ability.

Anthropogenic climate change is a fact, not so easily observable because of the observational biases and short, fallible memory spans of the observers, the conflation of 'weather' and 'climate', the desires of certain members of the culturally elite, and the intellectual manipulation of a (apparently growing) set group of people who are either truly disenfranchised or self-identify as disenfranchised (whether they actually are or are not).

The basic mechanism was identified in the middle 1800's, an accurate estimate of the amount of heating caused by the mechanism was made, fairly accurately, in 1896, and the actual physics of the mechanism was studied and understood by the early 1950's, largely due to research done by the US Air Force at Hanscom AFB in association with work on sensors for heat-seeking missiles...

There is essentially no disagreement in the scientific community about the causes of the increasing rate of warming; as always in science there is disagreement in details and interpretations.

The 'debate' is in the public perception, exacerbated by, among other thing, human nature, vested financial interests, apathy, laziness, fear and ignorance.



The hypocritical and lazy 'one scientist was wrong once, so they're all not to be trusted' is, at the same time, sad, silly and scary (and, unfortunately, predictable [ever hear of the 'Dark Ages'?])...

Aristotle is generally credited with the "Earth is the center of the universe' idea, which, while incorrect in the modern interpretation, is, perceptually and conceptually, actually not.

Modern cosmology postulates that there is no 'center of the universe', therefore, the human intellect requires that, if the location of the planet is to be determined, it be placed where the evidence shows it.

The evidence (to Aristotle at least) at the time was that Earth (known to be spherical by that time) was at the center of the 'universe', so his provisional placing of that sphere at the center of it all made perfect sense.

Were he alive today, there is no question that he would not hold that view...because it is not supported by the evidence.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by williamtl

We have lost the ability to discuss. It’s been traded for the ability to be right or if I can’t be right to yell louder than you so no one can hear you and think I may be wrong. And I certainly have to yell loud enough that no one on my tribe hears you lest they start to think differently.

Bingo.
The modern meaning of "debate" seems to be defined by the process of shouting with the inability to listen to another view. Within social media banter, one can simply eliminate opposing voices until only those with similar, "correct" views are heard and reinforced: the echo chamber.

In a unique way, weather helps to place cruisers close together at times. The colorful characters I have met on boats typically practice the older style of debate. Maybe this is simply because of personal contact in close-quarters?

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by williamtl

In my circles, it was sex, religion, and politics. But if you avoid these about all you have to talk about with folks is the weather.

We have lost the ability to discuss. It’s been traded for the ability to be right or if I can’t be right to yell louder than you so no one can hear you and think I may be wrong. And I certainly have to yell loud enough that no one on my tribe hears you lest they start to think differently.

Some of my best friends have very different views. Different to the point I can’t even relate to how they get to their point of view. But we keep discussing because it’s always learning for both of us. This is much more rewarding than sitting around listening to folks parrot the same thing without thought.

Good post

[Kenomac]

Never underestimate how many stupid people inhabit this planet.

[Mike OReilly]

Well, ain’t this a fun discussion…

Science, and scientists, did not exist in the way we are discussing it until after the scientific revolution. Prior to that there was natural philosophy and natural philosophers who would attempt to explain reality in the form of a logical argument.

Copernicus is credited with “discovering” the heliocentric nature of our solar system, however, there were multiple recorded thinkers dating back to ancient Greece that postulated the same. Look up Aristarchus of Samos.

A scientific understanding of a phenomena is not a fixed thing. It changes as new evidence (data) is unearthed and better theories are developed. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. All scientific understanding is contengent truth that can, and does change if and when new facts and theories come to light.

This is what makes science different than natural philosophy or faith-based ways of knowing. Scientific understandings evolve via the scientific method from hypothesis to models, to theories, and eventually to laws. A scientific theory is not some shot fired in the dark. It is an explanation for a range of phenomena under examination. A theory is built on experimental and observational facts that are reproducible, repeatable and predictive.

The flat Earth hypothesis fails b/c evidence and theory contradict it. Currently there are no such contradictions when it comes to the theory of evolution, the age of the Earth, anthropogenic climate change, ozone depletion, the Big Bang, or a whole host of other theories and scientific understandings.

[snort]

I'm impressed. How did you learn of Aristarchus?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by snort

I'm impressed. How did you learn of Aristarchus?

Oh I dunno. It was a fact rattling around in my old brain, likely picked up through formal university course work or from reading. I did have to do a quick search to remind myself of the fellow’s exact name though.