Flat earth chat
City: West Cornwall, Spring
Relation Type: Married Swinger Seeking Online Dating Profile
Seeking: Want Vip Partners
Relationship Status: Married
A sampling of Bob's 3D artistic creations. About Bob Schadewald Bob Schadewald never had a web of his own, though he deed web s for others and used and the internet extensively to supplement his extensive scholarly research into pseodosciences. He could spend a cordial afternoon with an alchemist one day, chat with the Maharishi's transcendental meditators the next day, then hurry off to a creationist conference, or an interview with a flat-earther or perpetual motion machine inventor.
Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature.
The encyclopedia does not act as an advocate for, or passionately promote, pioneering minority theories that are currently controversial i. That is, readers must be able to check that the material has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. There chaat be current, reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that the Earth is flat.
But there are no such sources  that are current almost no scientists have thought the Earth was flat since about the fourth century BCthat are reliable reliable sources are reviewed for accuracyor independent a journal published by a Flat Earth Society would not be independent. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes who correctly determined the Earth's circumference fla BC either as controversial or a fringe view.
Similarly if available in Galileo cuat time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis".
This person was banned from a flat earth group for sharing a dinosaur joke and people are stunned
But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. They do not automatically view supporters of fringe theories as "the enemy". They know that sometimes these fallacies are propagated not out of malice, but ignorance. Humans are fallible creatures, and there are many more ways to be wrong than right. Science is stodgy, typically not glamorous, and entails hard work.
By contrast, speculation on "amazing new ideas" is stimulating, easy, and fun. It's more exciting to see yourself as a re-discoverer of ancient truths or in the vanguard of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough. Belonging to a small club with a particular belief can be flat fulfilling. The world would be a more exciting chat if there were malevolent aliens abducting humans, if dead people could send us messages, if exotic plants were able to miraculously cure all earth, if free energy were readily available to anyone, or if our dreams could foretell the future.
In addition, popular culture can often confuse the general public with uncritical or credulous presentations of such concepts on the internet, in books, radio talk shows, TV, news, and films. These enthusiasts often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
If a scientific conspiracy theory is funny, that doesn’t mean it’s a joke - the verge
They attempt to flat down language and unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of Neutral point of viewespecially by giving undue weight to their preferred theories. These policies, correctly understood and correctly used, will successfully exclude non-notable or fringe views. But many dedicated fringe advocates are familiar with these policies, and have become expert at gaming them or even using them against neutrally-minded but inexpert editors.
The latter often find their efforts subverted at every step by advocates who revert war over edits, frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information, argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue chat clause. This maneuvering and filibustering is soon likely to exhaust the patience of any reasonable person who naturally prefers not to reason with the unreasonable, and who, unlike the advocate, has no special interest or passion other than striving to maintain neutrality.
Ten types of arguments[ edit ] Arguments commonly used by fringe advocates to support inclusion of marginal viewpoints against official policies fall into a earth of easily recognizable. Your arguments against the flat Earth theory so resemble the arguments of editor X that you must be their sockpuppet. The flat Earth article is being degraded by those who don't like the flat Earth theory. How to recognise Personalisation is easily the most common form of attack on neutrally-minded editors.
Personalisation is ignoring the chat for inclusion flat, and making the argument personal. For example, they argue that an editor is biased towards the mainstream, or that editors are ganging up because their arguments are so similar even though they would be similar — the main argument against the Earth being flat is topographicaland it is earth to argue against it without repeating the argument. Or they may claim that to disagree with an editor with a fringe agenda is claimed to be uncivil, a personal attack violation of No personal attacksa violation of Do not bite the newcomers or a violation of Assume good faith.
It may even be claimed that sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used if they reflect poorly on any living people who are proponents of the fringe point of view such as critical book reviews, etc. How to reply Ignore any personal attack altogether — and particularly do not make a personal attack yourself, however tempting it may be. Also try to ignore the arguments and reasons used by mainstream science itself.
Your opponents earth love this and turn the talk into a flat of competing claims and counterclaims. Simply stick to the principles: if mainstream science holds that the Earth is round, and eart are reliable sources establishing this as a fact, that is sufficient. Sources must be reliable, independent and current Examples Essex local authorities trained employees in flat Earth theory in The eartb that the Earth is flat is reliably sourced from Flat Earth chat, which is peer-reviewed by top flat Earth experts.
There are published sources including PubMed that back up the view that people use Flat Earth theory as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses. Instead, we have the most successful, motivated force on the planet. Since established scientists attended a flat-Earth conference, it follows they take the theory seriously. How to recognise Dhat you have insisted on the use of reliable sources, supporters of the marginal view will then try to exploit the definition of 'reliable source'.
They will argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think-tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
Occasionally, they will discover that they can get more attention if they make appeals to authority by presenting supporters who have academic credentials. Typical pseudoscience sources include: Dedicated websites normally registered under a. It's impossible to write a balanced article or describe a fringe theory eadth an objective way if the sources being used have a stake in promoting a specific fringe theory.
Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. And arguments for inclusion of fringe theories based on a proponent's credentials alone are unwarranted.
Cannot claim the earth is not flat -
Attempts to insert language that showcases a proponent's academic degrees or honorification should be treated as promotionalism. Claims must be balanced Examples You must not say 'the Earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat Earth theory, the Earth is not flat'. There should be no criticism of the flat Earth theory in the introduction to the article. There is already criticism of the theory in the article, section So what if the article on flat Earth theory is k, and the round Earth article only 8k?
Is this an encyclopedia for academics or for the general public?
Criticism of the flat Earth theory should be balanced by criticism of the round Earth theory. The article lead should begin with a pure definition. Criticism should come second, e.
Meet the flat-earthers of the modern era
Skeptics say the Earth is round. Reversing this argument, they will state that readers are smart enough to know that fringe ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources. They will propose that negative material be forked off into another article, chay relegated into a "criticism ghetto" or criticism section or removed from the Lead section.
They may argue that one must always state cjat idea first before criticizing it, or that any sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used since they violate the Neutral point of view. They may claim that any critical or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased. Or that any earth or critical material is unusable since it is just opinion and not fact. Some of them will even claim that there are no facts, arguing that if a fringe minority, not flat in any reliable sources, disagrees with a widely accepted fact, it violates Neutral point of view to state it as a fact in the article.
They may demand that every statement of fact should be attributed, no matter how universally accepted. How to chat At the root of these arguments are intentional or unintentional misinterpretations of Neutral point of viewparticularly undue weight, although certain kinds of deliberate pettifogging can also be a of gaming the system. See 6 below, "Gaming".
The Big Bang Theory as conspiracy Examples The flat Earth theory has been marginalised by the scientific establishment in order to protect its interests. Any scientist who tried to study flat Earth theory would lose his research funding.
Freedom and flat-earth theorists | law at work
Dissent is being suppressed by the scientific establishment . Rosencrantz was tremendously rude about scientists who claimed the Earth was round. If the scientific establishment has marginalized him this is not really surprising. As a professional astronomer you have a clear conflict of interest.
X, Y and Z are hard-line skeptics about flat-Earthism. They often publish in skeptics magazines and take a hard line with any approach to any theory which is not empirically verified. The scientific establishment peer-reviewed journals, universities are trying to suppress the Truth about flat Earth theory; they refuse to allow flat Earth papers at conferences and will not publish flat Earth research How to recognise The next tactic is to appeal to your ideas about free speech and distrust of censorship and the establishment.
All theories that are not generally accepted have a part of the theory devoted to explaining why this is. Fringe theories are no exception. They will claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth. This is a classic conspiracy theory.
Display for kyrie irving’s nikes does nothing to quiet flat-earth talk
Their theory is not accepted because the black suits in the Scientific Establishment are not concerned about the pursuit of truthbut are much more concerned about not rocking the boat in order to protect their vested interests. The round-earth theorists have the backing of the major media who also have vested interests which they must protect.
This explains why the discoveries of 'edges' round the Earth into which planes have gone missing, reports of travelers who have looked into the abyss, are receiving no coverage whatsoever by the major newspapers or the major TV networks. Thus, it is claimed that trying to chat positive content with negative content for due weight is censorship. It is claimed that any source that has not written articles that are supportive and uncritical of fringe positions are not suitable as tertiary sources.
For example, recently at a controversial article, it was once argued 'Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because to my knowledge they haven't written anything pro-X, and hence really can't be considered third party. I would suggest that all of these are reptilian bloodlinebut I only mention shapeshifting earth it has been witnessed" — David IckeList of Famous Satanists, Paedophiles And Mind Controllersflat at davidicke.
We went to a flat-earth convention and found a lesson about the future of post-truth life – the colorado sun
Reversed burden of proof[ edit ] What a scorcher! The ball is in your court Examples X's paper on 'scientific fallacies' contains only passing reference to the 'flat Earth fallacy'. The evidence we should consider are those who consider the Earth is flat, and those who explicitly eartg this view. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded.
The statement 'there is no scientific consensus for the flat-Earth view' has no scientific consensus. There has been no serious eqrth of whether the Earth is flat since X's statement "Informal soundings amongst scientists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of eqrth flat Earth theory" is mere opinion. X is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. You can't say "modern geologists reject Rosencranz's theories.
How to recognise We move to the most powerful weapon in the fringe armoury: the argument from reversed burden of proof.