Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Feb '19 04:04
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/17/study-blames-youtube-for-rise-in-number-of-flat-earthers

    "Study blames YouTube for rise in number of Flat Earthers
    Conspiracy theories shown on video-sharing site persuade people
    to doubt Earth is round"

    "Of the 30, all but one said they had not considered the Earth to be
    flat two years ago but changed their minds after watching videos
    promoting conspiracy theories on YouTube."
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    18 Feb '19 13:39
    "Conspiracy theories shown on video-sharing site persuade people
    to doubt Earth is round"

    I take it those people are far far more gullible than most people and probably a lot less intelligent.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    18 Feb '19 17:21
    @Duchess64
    Probably the same bunch voting for Trump. We have to face it. Humans are not as smart as they are cracked up to be. Me included.
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    18 Feb '19 19:06
    @duchess64 said
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/17/study-blames-youtube-for-rise-in-number-of-flat-earthers

    "Study blames YouTube for rise in number of Flat Earthers
    Conspiracy theories shown on video-sharing site persuade people
    to doubt Earth is round"

    "Of the 30, all but one said they had not considered the Earth to be
    flat two years ago but changed their minds after watching videos
    promoting conspiracy theories on YouTube."
    It's not YouTube's fault. The rightful role of the internet in our society should be more of a court jester than a truth-teller. Those YouTube clips "proving" the Earth is flat are just fancy magic tricks. Now we have adults who think magic is real.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Feb '19 20:30
    @wildgrass said
    It's not YouTube's fault. The rightful role of the internet in our society should be more of a court jester than a truth-teller. Those YouTube clips "proving" the Earth is flat are just fancy magic tricks. Now we have adults who think magic is real.
    In RHP forums, more than a few writers evidently prefer to accept YouTube videos
    as their most authoritative sources of information, much more authoritative than
    all scholarly or scientific books or articles.

    When I have posted a list of scholarly books as my sources, I have been sneeringly
    dismissed by some writers who argue that must be worthless because the existence
    of any YouTube video to the contrary must be much more convincing.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Feb '19 20:45
    @sonhouse said
    @Duchess64
    Probably the same bunch voting for Trump. We have to face it. Humans are not as smart as they are cracked up to be. Me included.
    As usual, Sonhouse loves to demonize Donald Trump's voters by exaggerating their faults.
    The overwhelming majority of Donald Trump's voters don't believe the Earth is flat.
    (Does Sonhouse claim to know if FreakyKBH supported Donald Trump?)

    In his general extreme ignorant and gullibility, Sonhouse's much closer to many
    of Donald Trump's supporters than he would care to concede.
  7. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    18 Feb '19 20:571 edit
    @duchess64 said
    As usual, Sonhouse loves to demonize Donald Trump's voters by exaggerating their faults.
    The overwhelming majority of Donald Trump's voters don't believe the Earth is flat.
    (Does Sonhouse claim to know if FreakyKBH supported Donald Trump?)

    In his general extreme ignorant and gullibility, Sonhouse's much closer to many
    of Donald Trump's supporters than he would care to concede.
    I believe you meant to say ignorance, not "ignorant".





    you're welcome YouTube
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Feb '19 00:371 edit
    @lemon-lime said
    I believe you meant to say ignorance, not "ignorant".

    you're welcome [youtube]PxK0RQ7FbOA[/youtube]
    I know the difference between an adjective and a noun in English.
    When writing very fast, I don't expect the first draft to be free of errors.
    If I have time, I usually correct any errors when editing.
    Of course, some of my hateful trolls like to attack me for editing at all.
  9. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    19 Feb '19 04:151 edit
    @duchess64 said
    I know the difference between an adjective and a noun in English.
    When writing very fast, I don't expect the first draft to be free of errors.
    If I have time, I usually correct any errors when editing.
    Of course, some of my hateful trolls like to attack me for editing at all.
    Again, I was being facetious. I've been attacked for spelling errors, using words that don't mean what I thought they meant, too many edits (how many are too many?) or pretty much anything that can be perceived as an error, whether it's an error or not. I don't like it either, but it doesn't bother me anymore.
    Come to think of it, now that it doesn't bother me it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often.
  10. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    19 Feb '19 04:52
    @duchess64 said
    In RHP forums, more than a few writers evidently prefer to accept YouTube videos
    as their most authoritative sources of information, much more authoritative than
    all scholarly or scientific books or articles.

    When I have posted a list of scholarly books as my sources, I have been sneeringly
    dismissed by some writers who argue that must be worthless because the existence
    of any YouTube video to the contrary must be much more convincing.
    I know. Most of them are really long and unwatchable. On the science forum, I would prefer to discuss real data, not propaganda.

    A list is not helpful either though. Do you expect readers to go through your book references to check source material? It would be better if you could quote/cite specific data that reinforces your premise.
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    19 Feb '19 09:38
    @duchess64 said
    In RHP forums, more than a few writers evidently prefer to accept YouTube videos
    as their most authoritative sources of information, much more authoritative than
    all scholarly or scientific books or articles.

    When I have posted a list of scholarly books as my sources, I have been sneeringly
    dismissed by some writers who argue that must be worthless because the existence
    of any YouTube video to the contrary must be much more convincing.
    The difficulty with using books as references is that people reading a correspondence chess site's public forums are unlikely to have immediate access to a handy library. When I put references the purpose is either just to demonstrate that I'm not making it up, so a link to Wikipedia is adequate, or to provide a link for people with a casual interest to follow. I don't seriously expect people to follow these links.

    The difficulty with YouTube is that it has almost no quality control. Wikipedia is heroic by comparison.
  12. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    19 Feb '19 13:272 edits
    What is really so surprising about this? Is it any less gullible to blindly believe everything you read in a book? The Earths 'sphericalness' has been personally experienced by a handful of people, only recently in the entire history of mankind. Now, people with videos are capturing rare optical illusions of city skylines, etc... rising above the curvature with just enough mathematical understanding to show what they are seeing should be impossible on a curved Earth. And without deeper examination they are correct, it should be impossible! The old adage 'seeing is believing' explains the rest for most of the world. Another type of video shows some conspiracy theorist engineer who has just enough knowledge in physics to apply some concepts about relative velocity incorrectly, and it takes at least his level of knowledge to 'undo' his model, because its usually a subtle error. Most of the 'learned world' would not catch the error, if it was not believed the Earth was spherical to begin with. Basically, humanity is not nearly as enlightened as our egos would have us believe.
  13. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    19 Feb '19 15:53
    @joe-shmo said
    What is really so surprising about this? Is it any less gullible to blindly believe everything you read in a book? The Earths 'sphericalness' has been personally experienced by a handful of people, only recently in the entire history of mankind. Now, people with videos are capturing rare optical illusions of city skylines, etc... rising above the curvature with just enoug ...[text shortened]... to begin with. Basically, humanity is not nearly as enlightened as our egos would have us believe.
    Have you ever seen the TV show "Ancient Aliens". There's a group of people who literally take everything in the world that they think is a little bit confusing or not quite congruent and conclude "It's probably.... aliens."

    It just makes sense.
  14. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    19 Feb '19 16:284 edits
    @wildgrass

    Yes, I've watched the show. It arises from a simple substitution. Take out "God", and replace "Aliens". Its suddenly seems more "scientific" and "liberal" to the audience...but, Houdini just pulled a different rabbit out of the hat. Perhaps, its deeply rooted in our psyche to believe in some great illusion for a reason, and we will always be stuck changing rabbits.

    You can believe 1 of 2 things:

    1) Total knowledge is finite, and obtainable. And we are moving toward it.

    2) Total knowledge is infinite, and the horizon of knowledge will continually recede as we "approach" it.

    or

    3) Deep down in places we don't talk about a parties, we all suspect 2) to be true, but choose to believe in 1) to maintain the illusion of progress. In essence providing something "to do" while we are here in the loop.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Feb '19 20:03
    @wildgrass said
    I know. Most of them are really long and unwatchable. On the science forum, I would prefer to discuss real data, not propaganda.

    A list is not helpful either though. Do you expect readers to go through your book references to check source material? It would be better if you could quote/cite specific data that reinforces your premise.
    I did NOT write that I post ONLY a list of scholarly books or articles.

    "It would be better if you could quote/cite specific data that reinforces your premise."
    --Wildhgrass

    I usually do that. Sometimes a 'critic' (troll) sneers and says that it's worthless in
    contrast to a YouTube video of one's choice.
Back to Top