"Fatal" mistake for flat earther

[jim mcnamara]

"Mad Mike" Hughes wanted to see for himself if the Earth was a sphere or flat. Went up in a rocket, when it failed, he ejected without his parachute and died in the fall.

https://www.polygraph.info/a/flat-e...hughes-dies-in-diy-rocket-crash/30454704.html

Just think how many free flu shots could have been given with what money he and his backers invested in trying to prove the Earth is flat.

 

[fresh_42]

Hagar or Eratosthenes, that is here the question.

It's tempting to feel a kind of joy, but on the other hand: some human being died completely without any sense. Guess the Darwin award this year will be his.

What's really sad is, that Thales of Milet said it 2,600 years ago, and Eratosthenes has proven it 2,200 years ago. How many years are necessary to convince people?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not clear he was really a flat-earther. Accounts in the LA Times article on his death vary, with one saying it was all for publicity. That's from his publicist who would presumably know. It's also come out that this was a Science Channel special.

 

[Klystron]

"I spy with my little eye...". Ignoring all other evidence, one can see the shadow of the spherical Earth cross the surface of the Moon during an eclipse. Projection too difficult a concept? I place this fool's demise under the rubric "Stupidity (and greed) got him into this mess. Why can't it get him out?".

If people can believe in relatively recent 'Hollow Earth' myths; that we actually live within a hollow Earth ruled by a master race, then anything goes.

 

[jbriggs444]

Ignoring all other evidence, one can see the shadow of the spherical Earth cross the surface of the Moon during an eclipse

It is not clear that Billy is looking at the edge of the shadow carefully enough to distinguish between the shadow of an angled penny and the shadow of a marble. I know that I've never looked that closely.

 

[russ_watters]

It's also come out that this was a Science Channel special.

That part bothers me. Presumably they were paying him, which means they were both funding and profiting from his [impending] death.

 

[jbriggs444]

That part bothers me. Presumably they were paying him, which means they were both funding and profiting from his [impending] death.

There is a slippery slope in there somewhere. With dim-witted idiots on one edge, professional daredevils on another and NASCAR drivers somewhere in the middle. Fortunately, there is not a big market for professional suicides. Yet.

 

[DaveE]

there is not a big market for professional suicides.

Not counting the very slow ones, like football and boxing...

 

[DaveC426913]

... he ejected without his parachute and died in the fall.

Really? I have not read anything about a personal parachute. I assumed he rode the rocket down. It gives me a tiny amount of comfort to think that he did not die trapped falling head first in that tin can. That would have been awful.

It's not clear he was really a flat-earther. Accounts in the LA Times article on his death vary, with one saying it was all for publicity. That's from his publicist who would presumably know. It's also come out that this was a Science Channel special.

Yeah. Some rumours have it that he wasn't really a Flat Earther but a rocket enthusiast. He simply used the Flat-Earthers' money to build his rocket.

 

[russ_watters]

Really? I have not read anything about a personal parachute. I assumed he rode the rocket down. It gives me a tiny amount of comfort to think that he did not die trapped falling head first in that tin can. That would have been awful.

That's the way some in the media described it (though not the link in the OP), but it doesn't make sense, and is probably wrong. The intent was for the entire rocket to parachute down in one piece (as seen in a previous flight), but the parachute lines were dangling and the parachute ripped off at the moment of launch. So the rocket followed a ballistic path back to earth.

If he was ejected, it probably happened at impact.

 

[Klystron]

The daredevil scenario answers the question: why use a manned rocket for this 'experiment'?

Model rocket people send aloft and retreive video capture payloads without the dead weight of a pilot dating back to early 20th C. Actual flat-earthers must have to deny photographic data that confirms spherical shapes to sufficiently large planetary objects. Hence, my earlier use of the child's ditty "..my little eye". Denying all data not directly 'visible to the human eye' conveniently denies much of science and medicine in one fell swope.

 

[hutchphd]

Evel Knievel just wanted to get to the other side of the Snake River canyon in spectacular fashion.
This...um...gentleman wanted to use essentially the same rocket to get the Karman line.! Evel may have been foolhardy but he was not a fool.
Interestingly the failures were similar, but Evel lived to tell the tale.

 

[jack action]

Yeah. Some rumours have it that he wasn't really a Flat Earther but a rocket enthusiast. He simply used the Flat-Earthers' money to build his rocket.

I'm more inclined with this theory.

First, he unsuccessfully tried to raise money; Then he "became" a flat-Earth believer and coincidentally raise money through this community:

Still, Hughes converted to the flat-Earth belief recently, shortly after his first fundraising campaign for the rocket earned just $310 of its $150,000 goal. His second campaign, this time posted after his conversion and with the support of the flat-Earth community, succeeded in hitting its $7,875 goal.

"I've been a believer for maybe almost a year. I researched it for several months in between doing everything else — you know, I've still got to make a living and all that kind of stuff, and building this rocket actually eats up a lot of my time," he told the flat-Earth Web show.

But he said later on:

However, in the interview with Space.com, Hughes clarified, "although I do believe in the flat Earth, this was never an attempt to prove that."

"This flat Earth has nothing to do with the steam rocket launches, it never did, it never will. I'm a daredevil!" he added. He additionally shared that he wanted to launch "to inspire people."

But whether the planet is a flat plane, or a globe, is something he openly wrestled with, telling CBS News that he was both confident in what he would find but open to other ideas.

“I expect to see a flat disk up there,” he said of his ultimate goal to get to space, months after his 2018 launch. “I don’t have an agenda. If it’s a round Earth or a ball, I’m going to come down and say, ‘Hey, guys, I’m bad. It’s a ball, okay?’ ”

Note that the second quote came up after he got a science channel to finance his second attempt. Science and flat-Earth theory don't go hand in hand.

So I think he really just wanted to built and ride a rocket and would say anything to get the financing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Denying all data not directly 'visible to the human eye' conveniently denies much of science and medicine in one fell swope.

The irony here, of course, is that what is 'visible to the human eye' - but 'not recorded by a device' - is the worst of all forms of evidence.

"I am pleased to say to my benefactors and sponsors that what I definitely saw up there - with my eyes - definitely warrants continued funding. Trust me."

 

[Ibix]

"I am pleased to say to my benefactors and sponsors that what I definitely saw up there - with my eyes - definitely warrants continued funding. Trust me."

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2268/

 

[phinds]

How many years are necessary to convince people?

No number of years or facts will ever convince people who just refuse to be convinced, and clearly flat-Earthers fall into that category. They have a psychological condition that just about forces them to believe that they have an understanding of things that the "experts" do not. There have been books written about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

No number of years or facts will ever convince people who just refuse to be convinced, and clearly flat-Earthers fall into that category.

In their defense, I suspect that, at the core of the FE philosophy, it is not literally about not believing the Earth is flat. I think that it is more about an ostensibly healthy skepticism of the modern philosophy of 'Trust us - we're scientists.'

To-wit: we shouldn't blindly believe that the world is the way it is simply because those with more degrees than us have decreed it to be so. That is when the rationality pendulum swings too far the other way.Granted, I'm being overly generous, but one could argue that FEs are here to remind all of us (even scientists) that we should always question our conclusions. Scientists (and more accurately, the media that boils that science down to popularism) get stuff wrong all the time. FEs are the other camp who are here to remind us not to get too big for our britches.

Yes, I'm certain a lot of extreme FEs really do believe the Earth is flat - but consider that an antidote to a lot of science-mongering that tells us that the world really is all figured out and our convictions will not be overturned.

Just playing Devil's Avocado here.

'Flat Earth Society of Canada [call] themselves "planoterrestrialists", [and] their aims were quite different from other flat Earth societies. They claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#In_Canada

 

[DaveE]

Not counting the very slow ones, like football and boxing...

Or like making a living sitting in front of a computer and not getting enough exercise; kind of like me.

 

[hutchphd]

To the Devils Avacado (cohabiting at @DaveC426913 ): The science-mongering is not what true scientists do. Science is not a set of agreed-upon knowledge. Science is, to quote the great RPF, the "the belief in the fallibility of experts".

Indeed the over reliance on technology breeds a certain worrying passivity into our relationship with the natural world, and the flat-earthers deserve kudos for asking the question. But when they refuse to acknowledge dozens of airtight independent data then they are just nutcases and need to be identified as such lest we lose track of the scientific method..

 

[phinds]

Or like making a living sitting in front of a computer and not getting enough exercise; kind of like me.

I would mark that w/ a smily-face "like" but it hits too close to home.

 

[PeroK]

In their defense, I suspect that, at the core of the FE philosophy, it is not literally about not believing the Earth is flat. I think that it is more about an ostensibly healthy skepticism of the modern philosophy of 'Trust us - we're scientists.'

Your profile says you are from Toronto. I'm in Spain at the moment and it's been dark for a few hours now.

Is it dark where you are?

 

[jack action]

But when they refuse to acknowledge dozens of airtight independent data then they are just nutcases and need to be identified as such lest we lose track of the scientific method..

Most of the time, they cannot follow (or even access) the data. In such a case, denying is the easiest (only?) option if you don't want to follow blindly. The other one is to do some serious work to learn the basics, which can be a long and scary journey to embark on, especially when it means to follow people who speak words you don't (initially) understand, and especially if you were led to think you cannot handle the work.

Personally, I think there is too much elitism around science. I think it's a shame how many people think that only a few can handle scientific knowledge, and the increased skepticism is a consequence of that.

This is why I don't like when the words "nutcase" or "crackpot" are used on this forum. IMHO, it builds more barriers than bridges.

 

[hutchphd]

This is why I don't like when the words "nutcase" or "crackpot" are used on this forum. IMHO, it builds more barriers than bridges.

This is becoming an existential question.
I did not use the term "nutcase" idly nor with particular malice. But when someone seeks public attention in order to promote ideas that are demonstrably false, despite repeated attempts at reasoned intercourse, they should be so labelled. Science is the tool by which we choose to adjudicate ideas of merit. Civilization is increasingly dependent upon our ability to do so and some ideas are demonstrably incorrect. Barriers are never to be encouraged, but we do need some guard rails on our bridges...

 

[jack action]

I did not use the term "nutcase" idly nor with particular malice.

My comment was not an attack on your intentions. It was more of a reflection on how it can be perceived by others.

But when someone seeks public attention in order to promote ideas that are demonstrably false, despite repeated attempts at reasoned intercourse, they should be so labelled.

I totally disagree with that statement.

If your explanation has merit, it should stand on its own for anyone who hears/reads it. Let your audience judge for themselves who is right. Resorting to name-calling has never brought anything to an argumentation. It always spiral into (or further encourage) trolling.

 

[DaveC426913]

To the Devils Avacado (cohabiting at @DaveC426913 ): The science-mongering is not what true scientists do.

Indeed. That was not a shot at scientists but at the popularist media.

Actually - not at the popularist media - at the average citizen, who forces the media to dumb stuff down because the average citizen is not interested enough to appreciate science.

 

[fresh_42]

Let your audience judge for themselves who is right. Resorting to name-calling has never brought anything to an argumentation. It always spiral into (or further encourage) trolling.

This is where I disagree. It does not make any sense to argue with flat earthers, trisectionists, people who think they have proven ERH, or found the key to GUT. It is a waste of time and we should prevent our members from wasting theirs. If thousand people deal for five minutes with an essay which is nonsense from the start, then we have wasted a total week of reading a textbook instead. There are many other places on the internet which allow nonsense. It doesn't need another one. People may expect to learn something here, not to read what flat earthers and friends have to say.

 

[hutchphd]

If your explanation has merit, it should stand on its own for anyone who hears/reads it. Let your audience judge for themselves who is right. Resorting to name-calling has never brought anything to an argumentation. It always spiral into (or further encourage) trolling.

Were I engaged in a reasoned debate with this (now deceased) fellow I would certainly not call him names. I am not caling you a derogatory name here, for instance. Nor would I!
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there are folks who are immune from attempts at rational discussion. These folks deserve the label "nutcase" not as pejorative but rather as a descriptor

 

[jack action]

It does not make any sense to argue with flat earthers

I totally agree with this.

But I think - in a forum like this one - it would be wise to put the right references in every thread where someone wants to start a debate. You don't try to convince the OP, you just redirect any potential reader to the right arguments, in a single post. No need to judge the OP, just stop replying afterward and ignore him/her, if you have said everything that needed to be said.

But if you just make a judgement about the personality of the OP, and you are not posting any references, and you close the thread:

1. you are no better than that person;
2. you are not helping a reader that is interested in the subject;
3. you look like an arrogant person;
4. you are adding fuel to the feud by frustrating people.

You don't have to respond to someone's comment/opinion, if you don't think it is worth responding to it. But it should be important to show the right arguments (which should usually be a redirect to an Insight article or something like that.)

You should only expect the same respect from others (for example, ban people who insult others or established science, as opposed to closing a thread).

 

[DaveC426913]

... there are folks who are immune from attempts at rational discussion...

I am in no way defending cranks - still just chewing on my avocado...

Wasn't it Aristotle that thought all of nature could be deduced through logic alone?
(They thought a watermelon would fall 20x faster than an orange, because - hey it's logical..)

Then the Scientific Method came along and said: experiment experiment experiment!
And SA also introduced us to the concept of 'you don't have to trust others if you can do your own experiments.'

In my generous view, FEs are taking this to heart. Don't accept argument by authority; doubt what you are told.

(Of course, if they followed up with the experiments themselves they would learn quite quickly that the Earth is indeed spherical, but hey...) I think the Flat Earth is their symbol. It's meant to be controversial.

 

[Klystron]

Perhaps the success of PF as a rational science platform is partially to blame (for implied insults to the less informed).

After a lifetime of polite acknowledgment of everyone's worth and outward compliance with the American idea that "each man's opinion is as good as another and better than most!"; we may be forgiven for some small elitism when describing progenitors of popular but erroneous concepts.

I admire civility and strive to contribute to polite discourse but recognize some people remain unreasonable.

 

[OCR]

If thousand people deal for five minutes with an essay which is nonsense from the start^*, then we have wasted a total week of reading a textbook instead.

It is a waste of time^* and we should prevent our members from wasting theirs.

Lol, this ^*thread was 30 posts long. . . now it's 31. .

.

 

[hutchphd]

In my generous view, FEs are taking this to heart. Don't accept argument by authority; doubt what you are told.

This is indeed an admirable trait and fundamental to our ethos. But one cannot just reject common belief as "dogma" and substitute an extraordinary claim. If you have extraordinary proof then I am absolutely willing to listen. But if you tell me Apollo spacecraft did not land on the moon and you cannot (or will not) speak to the laser reflector, the orbiter photos, the foolishness of the Van Allen belt claims, thousands of participants, etc etc etc) then you need to be labelled loudly and often a "nutcase" lest some other poor soul be induced to waste her precious time listening to you.
And remember not very long ago many people were burned as witches. I greatly fear a similar future. We do not require consensus on what is true but we do need consensus on how we will decide what is false..

 

[phinds]

the average citizen, who forces the media to dumb stuff down because the average citizen is not interested enough to appreciate science.

Dave, I think that's unnecessarily dismissive of the average citizen. The lack of interest in science is, I think, unfortunately quite understandable. People have little interest in learning detailed subjects that they are not going to put to any use. They don't CARE how GPS works, or their smart-phone, etc, they just care that those things DO work. They are far more concerned with the boss at work, what's for dinner, what's on TV, etc. This does not make them bad people. Yes, it DOES cause media outlets to have to dumb down technical stuff and it makes for a rather poorly informed citizenry on scientific issues, but that is nothing new in the world.

 

[jbriggs444]

(They thought a watermelon would fall 20x faster than an orange, because - hey it's logical..)

Watermelons do fall faster than oranges. Do not argue with caricatures of what Aristotle held true.

 

[DaveC426913]

Watermelons do fall faster than oranges. Do not argue with caricatures of what Aristotle held true.

Hey - I don't take credit - I stole it from Carl Sagan.

 

[phinds]

"each man's opinion is as good as another and better than most!"

The problem is not that point of view so much as that it has morphed into "each man's FACTS are as good as another and better than most" and a lot of people can't tell the difference.

 

[jbriggs444]

Hey - I don't take credit - I stole it from Carl Sagan.

But Aristotle didn't say it. Sagan didn't say that he did and even if Aristotle had said what Sagan didn't say he said, arguing against it because it is something Aristotle said is irrelevant.

Argument from authority twice removed?

 

[fresh_42]

I say an orange doesn't fall at all in water. Not sure about a watermelon, but I think it does fall.

 

[jbriggs444]

I say an orange doesn't fall at all in water. Not sure about a watermelon, but I think it does fall.

Video says "it floats".

 

[vela]

Most of the time, they cannot follow (or even access) the data. In such a case, denying is the easiest (only?) option if you don't want to follow blindly.

They could admit they don't know rather than deny. It's quite different to say one is not convinced the Earth is round than to assert the Earth is flat.

 

[russ_watters]

Watermelons do fall faster than oranges. Do not argue with caricatures of what Aristotle held true.

Could you clarify this some? By what mechanism do they fall faster and was that explained by Aristotle?

I don't see what is controversial in what Dave said.

 

[gmax137]

Lol, this ^*thread was 30 posts long. . . now it's 31. .

.

and climbing. without any details on the steam rocket. that's what I'd like more details on.

 

[jbriggs444]

Could you clarify this some? By what mechanism do they fall faster and was that explained by Aristotle?

I don't see what is controversial in what Dave said.

Terminal velocity. I'd expect the air resistance to scale as the area and the down force to scale with the volume [for comparable densities]. I doubt that Aristotle ever actually talked about oranges and watermelons.

 

[russ_watters]

Terminal velocity. I'd expect the air resistance to scale as the area and the down force to scale with the volume [for comparable densities]. I doubt that Aristotle ever actually talked about oranges and watermelons.

My understanding was that terminal velocity aside(I doubt he knew of it), Aristotle believed objects fell at a rate proportional to weight. I don't recall hearing a connection between Aristotle and fruit either, except with regard to Tycho Brahe, who is said to have dropped different sized fruit at dinner parties to prove Aristotle wrong.

 

[celvet]

Just think how many free flu shots could have been given with what money he and his backers invested in trying to prove the Earth is flat.

Do you really think that the majority of flat earthers are pro-vaccination? As they most likely are not, would they care?

Regarding the video of the watermelon -- I don't think video would be an accepted source. . . Did you see it float with your own eyes?

EL

 

[jbriggs444]

Just think how many free flu shots could have been given with what money he and his backers invested in trying to prove the Earth is flat.

One thing about free flu shots is that they are literally free. Insurance pays for them. The insurance company is [I strongly suspect] willing to do so in part because of the savings for not having to pay for flu cases. The net cost is less than zero. The societal net cost is far less than zero.

 

[phinds]

One thing about free flu shots is that they are literally free. Insurance pays for them.

And your insurance is free? Mine sure isn't

 

[DaveC426913]

Terminal velocity. I'd expect the air resistance to scale as the area and the down force to scale with the volume [for comparable densities]. I doubt that Aristotle ever actually talked about oranges and watermelons.

If we're going to beat this to death, then let's clarify a few things:

1. I paraphrased Carl Sagan. He mentioned the watermelon and orange discrepancy in one of the Cosmos eps. I acknowledged this in post 35.
2. I did not say Aristotle said anything about watermelons or oranges or how fast they fall. Those are two separate thoughts in two separate sentences - and those two separate sentence have different subjects - one "Aristotle", the other: an ambiguous - yet plural - "they".
3. I did not simply say "they thought watermelons fall faster than oranges" (which may or may not be true, but is a red herring); what I said was "they thought watermelons fall 20x faster than oranges". (which they don't).

My post 29 stands.

 

[jbriggs444]

And your insurance is free? Mine sure isn't

You are right, of course.

I was trying to point out that the incremental cost of the flu shot is zero for you and likely negative for the insurance company. In a rational society (*cough* *cough*), free vaccinations for everyone would be an obvious no brainer.

 

[hutchphd]

One thing about free flu shots is that they are literally free. Insurance pays for them. The insurance company is [I strongly suspect] willing to do so in part because of the savings for not having to pay for flu cases. The net cost is less than zero. The societal net cost is far less than zero.

Point well made.
But there is always the issue of working capital and somehow (I should probably have read more Karl Marx) liquid funds never seems available for such endeavors. Of course this begs the question where in this process it actually seems a zero sum game when in the long term it surely and manifestly is not.