Ted.
I have already apologised for failing to make it clear that I was addressing the contents of Patterson’s essay/chapter/whatever.
That piece puts a heavy emphasis on Flat Earth in general, and the Columbus Flat Earth myth in particular. I therefore do not consider it unreasonable to concentrate on this issue.
I also do not think it is unreasonable, particularly given Washington Irving’s involvement, to suggest that the Columbus Flat Earth myth was aimed at distorting/romanticising American History, rather than the History of Science, and that the History of Science was merely ‘collateral damage’, and that this therefore fits more uncomfortably into any wider pattern.
If this phenomenon is this common (and I have no reason to disbelieve you on this point) then I am surprised that Patterson was unable to find anyone who would condemn themselves out of their own mouth, and had to resort to putting words in their mouth.
I do not think this is helped when an atheism “skeptic” (I’d use a more severe term myself) makes baseless accusations on the subject, and clearly “don’t know any better”, as he thinks these quotes are “the quotes [he] had in mind”, when they support nothing of the sort.
I have never read Sagan’s book, nor seen his series – it was probably shown eventually in NZ but, given practices at the time, probably not for years afterwards. I have however read Patterson’s piece and his baseless accusations against several prominent atheist scientists. I think I can be forgiven for both wanting to concentrate on the latter, and wishing to see them addressed before we move onto the wider subject (including Sagan).