It’s not my definition, it came from the dictionary…
1 Like
Wait, what? You’re gonna have to change your moniker from agnostic.
And there is no argument, I can look out the window of a plane or stand on a mountain top (I have done both) and observe that the world is not flat…
A lot (or maybe even all?) of Flat-Earthers do not believe in gravity. A lot of them knows more about gravity than the typical person, and certainly more than what is required by GED physics. Also, even if the Flat-Earther’s knowledge is not there yet, they can have arguments or challenges that require far more than GED physics to answer or rebut.
For example, the Cavendish experiment is something that the Flat Earth community knows very well. How many people who learned only GED physics can describe the Cavendish experiment, and quantitatively compute the systematic error terms from say, EM forces and the like? How many even learned of the Cavendish experiment in GED physics?
Here’s what happened to a bunch of physics graduate students who thought that they can just waltz in to a Flat Earth convention unprepared and debate a panel of Flat Earthers: https://youtu.be/bXmQyr0lMWA
One of the Flat Earthers was a gravity denier and asked a question about how LIGO works. The graduate students cannot answer (I’m not sure why, as this was actually a straightforward question). Regardless, I doubt anyone with only GED physics education can rebut that argument against gravity.
3 Likes
Good point, but it is the definition you adopted, as opposed to some other definition from another dictionary. I am not claiming you are wrong in your understanding of the word irrational, just whether it actually applies here
Agreed entirely. It isn’t treating them with respect to dismiss them as having no arguments and just needing to read a text book. Should they read the textbook? Absolutely, or they are going to strawman the theories that they are claiming to rebut, and use terms like “second law of thermodynamics” without actually knowing what it is. I was hugely guilty of this when I was into ID and some other things. Terms like “quantum indeterminacy” and “second law of thermodynamics” were proof for my view. If I had actually been forced to read through good material on what these are, I doubt I would have held these views.
I guess a lot of this comes down to how we want to treat people. Using an approach of disengagement and claiming irrationality can just as easily be levelled at YEC, many OEC accounts and even more regularly at issues of biblical history. If we brush the flat earthers aside, well, we ought to be happy enough when it happens to us if we hold a view contrary to standard textbooks and established science
1 Like
Sorry, O/T - I meant YEC. It’s strange though, I have far more interest in theology now than I ever did as a not-very-active Presbyterian. 
It’s certainly a hodgepodge of knowledge and ignorance. Their basic knowledge of gas laws and basic Newtonian physics is certainly hampered as shown by their insistence that density is a force.
This is a phenomenon seen in ID/creationism discussions as well. They try to shift the conversation to some esoteric topic that deals with gravity so they don’t have to discuss the very obvious and easy to explain problems with the Flat Earth model, such as the explanation for why everything is being pushed down by a force perpendicular to the ground everywhere on Earth.
One also has to wonder how a trip to the Antarctic circle during summer would help them think about things. It’s kind of hard to have a flat Earth and have the Sun stay in the sky 24 hours a day south of the Antarctic circle. In fact, the southern hemisphere poses a lot of problems in general.
1 Like
This is not true for many (most?) Flat Earthers. In fact I have never heard of this in person. I have heard many claim that bouyancy, not density is what is responsible for gravitational phenomena. Many FE models had gone beyond the need for this as well.
I think this is not a charitable reading of the situation. The question of why mainstream physics thinks that gravity exists has a long and storied history in the FE community, and thus I think this line of questioning is quite appropriate.
This is not a problem for many FE models, such as the one that claims that the Earth is accelerating upwards and thus by Einstein’s equivalence principle generates a gravitational attraction perpendicular to its surface.
1 Like
And he didn’t lose tenure, since he never had it.
2 Likes
Is mine the only irony meter flickering here?
2 Likes
4 posts were split to a new topic: Gravity Can be Repulsive
If you want to understand why flat earthers are wrong to reject the consensus that the earth is round, but YEC scientists are correct in rejecting the consensus of an old earth & evolution, then you need to understand the difference between historical and operational science, as a bare minimum.
Starter level: ‘It’s not science’
More advanced level: https://creation.com/examining-historical-science
Self-knowledge is a rare and precious commodity. Accent on “rare”. If he wants to see himself as others see him, he could do worse than contemplate flat earth science. But of course he has the difference all explained by his imaginary distinction, invented by creationists, between operational and historical science, so he doesn’t have to. This is unfortunate.
2 Likes
Your first link is not… helpful, shall we say… The cartoon sums it up: evolution is a tree, not a ladder. If you want to convince me of something, avoid attacking straw men.
Your second link is to an article you have written:
Dr Cleland has attempted to rescue historical science from the criticisms of those in the scientific community who recognize the superiority of empirical (operational) science to unfalsifiable stories about the past
Whether historical evidence is refutable or not is, it seems, a given making looking at evidence together somewhat a pointless exercise. I note your reaction to looking at tree ring raw data.
There is no difference between them. They both test hypotheses using empirical and repeatable observations.
9 Likes
Maybe they came from beyond the ice wall?
1 Like