You know, I really like it when people think twice about the “current” state of science. Thinking “I don’t think that’s true. So I will check and verify” is a great thing and most people should do that. Thinking the earth is flat is fine - if you then go to verify.
The problem I have is if there is PLENTY of proof of things being a certain way that you just choose to ignore. Then you become an idiot.
People like RFK confuse skepticism with going against conventional thinking. Flerfers and anti-vaxxers and other conspiracy theorists aren’t skeptical, because then they’d be open-minded about evidence. But they think they’re being skeptical because they’re going against the status quo.
Unfortunately bucking the status quo becomes an identity issue, and not only does evidence not matter anymore, but grifters come out to prey on people who just want to be skeptical.
“Current” science is a bit of a stretch, like a couple thousand years of stretching. Eratosthenes showed the earth was round and calculated its circumference to an astonishing precision using research and fairly simple trigonometry. He died 2,219 years ago.
Sure, but with “current” I mean the current understanding of science. We know the earth is round, but not because we discovered it, but because it’s the general consensus that is taught, barely anyone doubts it. Trying to - let’s call it “rediscover” - the scientific status quo is something I do like because it might always be the case that the people before were wrong. This is how new discoveries are made and I think that is a great thing. As an example, nobody believed that continents did actually move, and Wegener was ridiculed because he had no sure way to proof it, but at some point, people had the way to proof that he was actually right.
You know, I really like it when people think twice about the “current” state of science. Thinking “I don’t think that’s true. So I will check and verify” is a great thing and most people should do that. Thinking the earth is flat is fine - if you then go to verify.
The problem I have is if there is PLENTY of proof of things being a certain way that you just choose to ignore. Then you become an idiot.
People like RFK confuse skepticism with going against conventional thinking. Flerfers and anti-vaxxers and other conspiracy theorists aren’t skeptical, because then they’d be open-minded about evidence. But they think they’re being skeptical because they’re going against the status quo.
Unfortunately bucking the status quo becomes an identity issue, and not only does evidence not matter anymore, but grifters come out to prey on people who just want to be skeptical.
Yeah, that’s the kind of conspiracy theorists I don’t like lmao.
A conspiracy theorist with strong evidence is just a leftist.
As in, conspiracies are real, but it’s the 1%.
Ah, ok. Didn’t know much reading-between-the-lines I needed to do there lol
“Current” science is a bit of a stretch, like a couple thousand years of stretching. Eratosthenes showed the earth was round and calculated its circumference to an astonishing precision using research and fairly simple trigonometry. He died 2,219 years ago.
Sure, but with “current” I mean the current understanding of science. We know the earth is round, but not because we discovered it, but because it’s the general consensus that is taught, barely anyone doubts it. Trying to - let’s call it “rediscover” - the scientific status quo is something I do like because it might always be the case that the people before were wrong. This is how new discoveries are made and I think that is a great thing. As an example, nobody believed that continents did actually move, and Wegener was ridiculed because he had no sure way to proof it, but at some point, people had the way to proof that he was actually right.