- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 24,534
- Reaction score
- 41,575
This should probably get merged with the Shroud Of Turin thread.
Sure thing!The earth being an oblate spheroid is completely right and fully understood.
You can dispute what causes gravity all you want but there's no basis whatsoever for claiming it doesn't exist. Maybe aliens will come to Earth and show us that gravity is just God taking a shit the size of the universe but it won't change in any way the mathematical basis for how gravity interacts with the universe so our ability to use that knowledge effectively is unchanged.
In the same vein, someone may come along and produce a mathematically and scientifically sound explanation for how the Earth came to exist that doesn't conform to our current understanding, but none of that will change the shape of the Earth to something different--it will still be an oblate spheroid.
Intelligence has zero to do with the Dunning Kruger effect, and further, intelligence is funky because people who are highly adept in certain areas can be quite deficient in others. But what you see most often when it comes to stuff like this is people who are kind of mediocre, don't finish school but think they're smart, end up supervisor in a call centre or some such and then convince themselves they've go some kind of inside track on knowledge of the universe.
In the WR it manifests as people who sound like they never went past grade 10 in high school. You can undoubtedly find a few examples ITT.
Edit:
I'm curious to see you list some of these half-wrong/half-understood topics if you're inclined.
So, what you're saying is you didn't get my point since you ignored everything I said except for the minor post script added after.Sure thing!
In cpu science p=np and quantum computing.
In physics I'd say 3 pretty large ones.
More antimatter than matter, quantum entanglement, and dark energy / dark matter. Placeholders validate formulas and current existing frameworks but can't possibly be true even though plugging in imaginary values helps solve real world problems.
This doesn't even tango with our current understanding of time, our understanding of consciousness and problem solving within the human brain itself (many core fundamentals of neuroscience are in contrast to obvious observations)
Certain things like fluid mechanics could be added to this list as well, however those are being solved by abstract mathematicians (which I would consider is turning it into a fully "hard" science)
He doesn't appear nearly as caffeinated as TCK. That dude would get in like 40 page arguments with what was name... Hollywood Nicky or whatever. Lol.He’s clearly TCK. Same schtick pretending to not believe in reality for like 15 years now. I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten bored of it yet.
That's the clouds moving because of the wind hahah.I don't see, feel, or otherwise percieve a moving spherical earth. What experience is a somewhat flat, stationary plane where things in the sky rotate around me.
I agree with the basis of your entire post, was just citing examples.So, what you're saying is you didn't get my point since you ignored everything I said except for the minor post script added after.
That these topics are not necessarily fully understood doesn't obviate any of these pursuits does it?
Catholicism is a god/Jesus/holy spirit religion.I didn't say I believed they were hiding land and resources. I just said those were possible motives.
Catholicism is a sun worshipping religion so that makes sense.
The sun being at the center of the solar system invalidates what the God of Bible says about creation. Which by extension invalidates him.
That's the "elite". The Establishment sets the culture for the nation and has the established power base in their back pocket. The Schools, MSM, Entertainment, all beat to the same Establishment drum, which people like Trump and Tucker clearly do not follow or agree with.
Ot a Tucker fan as he is cringy as it cag get but come on man to anyone thinking he was referring to his legit thinking it was a flat earth. He was trying to make a point
I think the number of such people is likely very small but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.I don't know the origins, but I do know there's people all over the world believe in it.
RE: the bold text, uh... no, and the rest of that paragraph is just a series of assumptions.I agree with the basis of your entire post, was just citing examples.
I agree alot of people who are FE, anti-vaccine, etc directly fit into your mold. But there are certainly distinguished physicists who are borderline flat earthers, and there are expert virologists who are anti vaccines.
As a flunkie who has mostly worked mid tier jobs (postal worker, golf related jobs) I worked on statistical models for casinos and couldn't believe the total non understanding even highly qualified bookmakers and pit bosses had when it game to game theory and the underlying math involved.... let alone the average Joe. Random conspiracy minded maniacs constantly spouted insane garbage but some were way closer to how casinos operated and games were set up than a high majority of "experts" in the field. I imagine the hard sciences are very similar. And other than a handful of real experts alot of people claiming every anti vaxxer, and FE are idiots actually have a typical level of relative knowledge in the field.
But generally I do agree with your post. It is similar to 90% of crypto "experts" on the internet not understanding finance or economics at all but posting 10 pagers about the fed, repo market etc.
Here is what i don't understand about flat earthers. You can see the sun, moon, stars, and other planets with your own eyes or a telescope. Even with a cheap telescope you can clearly see the moon is curved. If everything else is round and curved why would the earth be different?
Is mathematics not a hard science? (Or the basis of nearly all of them?)I think the number of such people is likely very small but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
RE: the bold text, uh... no, and the rest of that paragraph is just a series of assumptions.
A decent education in the sciences is built, layer upon layer, from basic principles up to complex results and conclusions, and beyond into exploring what is not already known. With each development in complexity the student ought to be able to relate it back to the previous state and understand how it was arrived at.
Their level of understanding of the topic should reflect their level of education and it should generally exceed that of someone who has not pursued the subject to such a degree. As it turns out, such people are least impacted by the Dunning-Kruger effect compared with experts and neophytes.
Does the word modern appear anywhere in my post? And no, you still don't get the point--people who "do their own research" are the most likely to fall prey to the Dunning Kruger effect and end up thinking they're experts when there are gigantic gaps in their understanding.Is mathematics not a hard science? (Or the basis of nearly all of them?)
Level of education especially in the modern day != proficiency.
With modern tools i.e. the internet, smarter people in general can quickly outpace someone at a mid-tier school especially in any of the harder sciences without a formal education.
Regardless of that though. I definitely agree with you in principle whatever that is worth. Although I think you are strongly overstating what a modern education looks like.
Good lord.I don't see, feel, or otherwise percieve a moving spherical earth. What experience is a somewhat flat, stationary plane where things in the sky rotate around me.
Lol trump who has desperately tried to be part of the elite lmaoThat's the "elite". The Establishment sets the culture for the nation and has the established power base in their back pocket. The Schools, MSM, Entertainment, all beat to the same Establishment drum, which people like Trump and Tucker clearly do not follow or agree with.
Hey man, let's be open to it. Tucker has a point.Good lord.
I think the number of such people is likely very small but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
RE: the bold text, uh... no, and the rest of that paragraph is just a series of assumptions.
A decent education in the sciences is built, layer upon layer, from basic principles up to complex results and conclusions, and beyond into exploring what is not already known. With each development in complexity the student ought to be able to relate it back to the previous state and understand how it was arrived at.
Their level of understanding of the topic should reflect their level of education and it should generally exceed that of someone who has not pursued the subject to such a degree. As it turns out, such people are least impacted by the Dunning-Kruger effect compared with experts and neophytes.