###########

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3uJHAvfbUU

Ever wondered why smart, sane people can fall for outrageous conspiracy theories like the Flat Earth? In this video, we delve into the psychology behind why even highly intelligent individuals can end up believing in nonsense. From cognitive biases to social influences, we explore the mechanisms that can lead rational minds astray.

The main promoters of Flat Earth Theory in recent years have been the mainstream corporate media. They are the ones who publicize Flat Earthers' stunts and groups much more effectively than they themselves do. It is worth thinking about why exactly that may be or what purpose it might serve. It's not just for comedy effect or audience share. Have you worked it out yet?

Smart people can find a reason to believe anything.

Flat Earth is easily debunked. GPS algorithms operating on billions of devices (like smartphones) rely on a spherical Earth. A conspiracy to hack all of those devices to fake a round Earth without the ruse being discovered would be totally impossible.

gravity effects radio waves (which are energy)

Also, radio ‘hams’ know that radio energy can be effected by sun storms; hams also know that atmospheric conditions can reflect (what we call) radio waves that help long distance contacts.

Longer waves in the right frequency range can skip off the ionosphere, but not the shorter wavelength / higher frequencies used for GPS. Very long wavelengths can refract around the Earth.

There would have to be a black hole at the center of the Earth to bend space that much...but then we wouldn't be here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2025 05:34AM by anybody.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smart people can find a reason to believe
> anything.
>
> Flat Earth is easily debunked. GPS algorithms
> operating on billions of devices (like
> smartphones) rely on a spherical Earth. A
> conspiracy to hack all of those devices to fake a
> round Earth without the ruse being discovered
> would be totally impossible.

As I asked above, why is Flat Earth Theory so heavily publicized by mainstream media?

No one has answered. It isn't because it is funny or quirky — plenty of other things are. It isn't even because it drives up ratings — again plenty of other options are available.

Maybe it is because it provides a simple and convenient way of ridiculing dissident views by association.

There is far more to be gained by promoting an obviously false and ludicrous idea like Flat Earth Theory in a world which is round, than there is from hiding a Flat Earth. If the Earth genuinely was flat, then the amount of effort to hide that would mot be worth the payoff. Supporters claim that it undermines Christianity, even though most Christians think the world is round, so that doesn't work.

As a secondary consideration, it has long been a policy to divert subversive energy into wild goose chases. Flat Earth Theory is such a thing. One could waste one's entire life "investigating" it, without ever producing anything of value.

Whenever someone accuses an opponent of being a Flat Earther or a tin foil hat wearer, they are guilty of the same kind of fallacy as a Mormon who assumes everybody leaves their church because of sin or being offended by some individual.

Or there's entertainment value in watching Cousin Eddie perform his latest experiment to "prove" the Earth is flat.

It's the modern equivalent of a freak show. No agenda required.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or there's entertainment value in watching Cousin
> Eddie perform his latest experiment to "prove" the
> Earth is flat.
>
> It's the modern equivalent of a freak show. No
> agenda required.

There are plenty of fringe theories out there. You will rarely hear the mass media promoting Hollow Earth theory for example except maybe in a UFO program. I don't recall ever seeing the Electric Universe theory discussed on TV either. Why? Because almost any member of the public can do simple things to verify a spherical Earth (I have!). That isn't the case with the other two ideas which are harder to examine.

I've noticed it is a common technique to reduce dissidents to a stereotype or cliché that is easy to mock. In the case of Mormon leadership, they have presented exmormons as people who can't leave the church alone, yet the evidence overwhelmingly points the other way. There are vast numbers of people who leave the church and never look back... Much more ao than go on forums like this. Yet it is a convenient stereotype.

In the same way, anyone who tries to unpack corruption or question dominant narratives now is branded a Flat Earther, no matter how good or bad their ideas are.

Bradley has the right of it. It is a universally understood ridiculous freak show. No agenda necessary. It gets clicks.

> In the same way, anyone who tries to unpack
> corruption or question dominant narratives now is
> branded a Flat Earther, no matter how good or bad
> their ideas are.


How is belief in a flat Earth "questioning a dominant narrative?"

The Earth isn't flat. It's a three dimensional spheroid.

That's a fact.

And if you don't agree, then please give an "alternative" explanation for a flat Earth that doesn't require magic or conspiracy theories.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2025 07:28AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > In the same way, anyone who tries to unpack
> > corruption or question dominant narratives now
> is
> > branded a Flat Earther, no matter how good or
> bad
> > their ideas are.
>
>
> How is belief in a flat Earth "questioning a
> dominant narrative?"
>
> The Earth isn't flat. It's a three dimensional
> spheroid.
>
> That's a fact.
>
> And if you don't agree, then please give an
> "alternative" explanation for a flat Earth that
> doesn't require magic or conspiracy theories.

What the establishment does is you promote a ridiculous idea such as Flat Earth Theory and then associate subversive opinions with it.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Very few people believe in Flat Earth Theory.

A lot of people do question the way many things are. Sometimes they have a good csse for doing so. No better way to shut down free discussion than to wheel out Flat Earth accusations. I've never met anyone in my life who wears a tinfoil hat but that is a useful trope.for shutting down debate as well.

That's how science works.

You can question whatever you want, but if you don't have proof to back it up, it's just hot air.

The most famous case is the Michelson-Morley experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Another is N-Rays -- that never really existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-ray

> In the same way, anyone who tries to unpack
> corruption or question dominant narratives now is
> branded a Flat Earther, no matter how good or bad
> their ideas are.

"Dominant narratives" are not sacrosanct and should always be questioned even if they are likely, more often than not, to be ballpark correct.

That said, counter narratives are not sacrosanct either. The question is whether the proponent of an idea can substantiate his views with evidence and reason. Given the effort it takes to fulfill that onerous requirement, most heretical assertions end up rightfully dismissed as the eccentric musings of the indolent. Anyone who wants to get beyond that presumption must do the work.

In the absence of that effort it is reasonable to suspect that often, as Freud might have said, a Flat Earther is just a Flat Earther.

Flat Earth is an outlier in that it is rather easily debunked by the average person. It's a kind of mental game that feels good to win and it's easy, so it's popular.

It's more a form of Solipsism than a conspiracy theory. You really have to disbelieve a lot to make it work. That may be the allure. It tests the limits of what you are allowed to believe, or can believe, in case Joseph Smith wasn't enough.

There are groups of Flat Earthers; they feed each others' delusions, so by definition the belief is not a solipsism.

In any case, I was using it as a synecdoche, representing the whole category of belief systems that are impervious to evidence and reason--many, but not all, of which are every bit as ill-founded as the conviction that the earth is flat.

Just look around you: it's not difficult to find people who think that reality can be verified through warm feelings independent of empirical facts.

There are very few Flat Earthers out there. Like the Tinfoil Hat accusation it is a useful way of ridiculing the opposition.

You appear unfamiliar with the rhetorical technique of synecdoche.

Man shall not live by literalism alone. . .

I've run across people on the web who don't believe the moon landings happened. That's fairly easy to disprove as well, but it doesn't seem to matter to them.

I also ran across a science teacher who doesn't believe in evolution. She teaches it because she has to, but she "holds her nose" while doing so.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've run across people on the web who don't
> believe the moon landings happened. That's fairly
> easy to disprove as well, but it doesn't seem to
> matter to them.

NASA hasn't done itself many favors in that regard. When I was younger I thought we would have moon bases by now.

Instead we haven't been back to the Moon in over fifty years and the more years pass the less convinced the public becomes. Maybe the Chinese will reverse that lag.

I just see it as the space equivalent of Concorde. A brilliant breakthrough with no lasting legacy.

We'll go back. See Andy Weir's novel, "Artemis" for a fairly plausible example of what lunar colonization might look like.

What is normal?

We used to think of 'smart' as 1 dimensional, but now we know better.

Mormonism as a socially acceptable eccentricity. I like it, considering many worse alternatives. And yet, pathological religions aren't your friend.

Some Montana lawmakers are attempting to ban mRNA vaccines. The trouble is, this just wouldn't affect Covid vaccines but a host of new vaccines moving forward. mRNA is the current, cutting edge technology. It would be like trying to ban cell phones or personal computers 20-30 years ago.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/montana-considers-becoming-first-us-state-to-ban-mrna-vaccine-use/ar-AA1yKXsQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Idaho's legislature has been doing that too.
They wouldn't know DNA from RNA, but they know they hate vaccines. So that's that.

As I've always said, some people need to learn the hard way.