Is YouTube Responsible For Creating Flat-Earth Believers?

[ZapperZ]

Please say it ain't so!

A researcher from Texas Tech University presented her findings at the recent AAAS Meeting, and found that most people started to believe in the Flat Earth idea after viewing YouTube videos!

Interviews with 30 attendees revealed a pattern in the stories people told about how they came to be convinced that the Earth was not a large round rock spinning through space but a large flat disc doing much the same thing.

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. “The only person who didn’t say this was there with his daughter and his son-in-law and they had seen it on YouTube and told him about it,” said Asheley Landrum, who led the research at Texas Tech University.

It is symptomatic of many things in this day and age. People use things they find on the 'net as their primary source of information (I'm looking at you, Wikipedia) without ever considering the validity, authenticity, or quality of the information that they are getting. I'm not saying one can't use or read these things. But one should not make one's mind with such certainty from these types of sources.

But I suppose that if you can fall that easily into believing that the Earth is flat simply by watching these YouTube videos, than you'll believe in anything.

Zz.

 

[BWV]

Wikipedia is a reliable encyclopedia with references to primary sources - no need to smear it

 

[ZapperZ]

Wikipedia is a reliable encyclopedia ...

Now that's funny, after I've documented errors in a number of entries.

Zz.

 

[BWV]

People need to be trained to do a better qualitative meta-analysis. I doubt that any of the physics jocks here could stand up to a good crank outside their field - say an Andrew Wakefield or Michael Behe. Similarly, the average person can’t cope with crank physics but they should be able to reason how highly improbable it would be for all of science to be wrong and some YouTuber to have the answer

 

[BWV]

Now that's funny, after I've documented errors in a number of entries.

Zz.

Studies have been done showing a lower error % than published encyclopedias

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Every resource has its negative aspects. It all depends on how you use it. You can use WhatsApp for chatting away to glory, and also for interacting with learned people and thereby boost your knowledge.

Something similar exists for YouTube as well. Youtube doesn't check for quality and authenticity of videos. If you are not aware, there is every chance that you will land up in the wrong place. Maybe that's why the PF media gallery was created with a view to separate out the authentic scientific videos.

 

[ZapperZ]

Studies have been done showing a lower error % than published encyclopedias

I don't recommend encyclopedias either.

Zz.

 

[DrClaude]

There used to be gatekeepers, people who would filter information and cut out the BS. There are of course some pro and cons to this, but overall it seemed to work ok in western democracies.

Now, everyone can put out content, making it easier for fringe ideas to be disseminated. Add to that the demagoguery against the "elites" with the knowledge (who, ironically, are rarely the real, powerful elites), and you basically get the world we are in right now.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Now that's funny, after I've documented errors in a number of entries.

Moreover, after Wikipedia made provisions for allowing the public to edit without logging in, spam has become a problem.

 

[DrClaude]

This is getting off-topic very fast. This thread is not about the validity of Wikipedia.

 

[ZapperZ]

Now, everyone can put out content, making it easier for fringe ideas to be disseminated. Add to that the demagoguery against the "elites" with the knowledge (who, ironically, are rarely the real, powerful elites), and you basically get the world we are in right now.

Yeah, and that's why I was laughing when I read the last part of the news article when it reported this:

But she conceded that some Flat Earthers may not be swayed by a scientists’ words. When the US astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explained how small sections of large curved surfaces will always appear flat to the little creatures that crawl upon it, his message was seen by some Flat Earthers as patronising and dismissive, Landrum said.

Yet, the Flat Earthers didn't think it was insulting and "patronising" when they make wholesale dismissal of scientists as conspirators. People like this will always try to paint themselves as the "victims", that things are being done to them, and are completely blind to what they do to other people.

Zz.

 

[Rive]

Please say it ain't so!

Well, it ain't so. The reason is more about the existence of cheap, non-filtered, easily available channels to express personal opinions. Youtube is just (a loud, flashy) part of this.

Also, I have a feeling that it is somewhere in our 'genes' to diverge from the safe, well known paths in case there are enough of us together and it does not cost too much - and to be honest being a flat Earth believer right now even can bring benefits instead of harm.
With adding in Photoshop and other 'reality manipulating tools' what I see is the development of a fragmented pile of broken 'realities' barely intersecting with each other. Without some kind of applied Darwinism enforced on the personal ideas I don't really see any way around this.

 

[phinds]

The Flat Earth Society was founded in 1956. I don't think YouTube was around back then (and of course a belief in flat Earth predates that society). It IS likely true that MORE people now believe in flat Earth because of social media but social media is not the cause, stupidity is.

 

[BillTre]

I don't recommend encyclopedias either.

Zz.

Well, what do you recommend for those who are not so scientifically inclined as a source of information on various topics like this?

You don't like encyclopedias, you don't like wikipedia, most people are not going to read research literature since they don't have the background to understand the concepts and jargon. What does that leave, popularized science articles whose availability is spotty and quality is often suspect.

Rather than just pointlessly complain, it would be more useful to provide an pathway to some solutions.
Maybe make comments (or insert links to relevant PF threads) on all the youtube videos and wikipedia articles you don't like.

I know a contractor who says there are three aspects of a job, of which you can only get two optimized: price, speed of getting it done, and quality. You can oten get two of them for a project but often not all three (perhaps unless you are related to the contractor).
Similarly for people with a causal interest in science, they often want to easily access information (therefore search the web, not take university courses or read textbooks (some of which have errors also)), they often don't want to pay for the information or invest lots of time to get an "answer", and they would like it to be correct (presumably).
Determining the correctness would probably be difficult for the nonscientific and most likely let slide if it seemed to "make sense".

 

[gmax137]

I think a large part of this is the distrust of authority. The counterculture of the 1960s and the widespread belief that the Viet Nam war was a horrible waste of lives strengthened the idea that those in authority are liars, or at least that what they say is tainted by their self interest. Pretty soon, this leads to "you have to be a fool to believe..."

 

[Bystander]

tainted by their self interest.

Those "in authority," and those out, even more so.

 

[nuuskur]

As much as I've seen in YouTube, the comment section mostly mocks the flat Earth idea. So, I'd say YouTube can be used to promote flat Earth belief, I don't think that's where it started, though. It is also 'popular' to be against widely accepted beliefs, to insist the governments are evil and new world order and yade yade yade ..

 

[Klystron]

Although written and presented as a modern novel with lovely brilliant ladies, courageous dedicated friends, and often hilarious insights into publishing, Italian semiologist Umberto Eco has written the definitive skeptical text on popular anti-science theories. Flat earth, hollow earth, Illuminati, and the persistent knights Templar among others, are examined and explained in detail with primary and secondary historical references. Though mainly focused on Europe with an interlude in Brazil, reading Foucault's Pendulum gives one a better understanding how 'moronic beliefs' multiply and spread.

While this thread is specific to Flat Earth theories shown on Youtube, Eco explains the origins and participants in these persistent phenomena.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think the failure of public education in the sciences bears more of the blame. Stupid YouTube videos can only create flat Earth believers if the watchers have not learned to think critically and draw conclusions from weighing the available data for themselves.

Science education has drifted over the past decades from a method-centered approach to a fact-centered approach, and thus it is more strongly an appeal to authority regarding what (set of facts) to believe and a less of an objective approach imparting of an objective method to draw conclusions based on observations and data.

It is always easier for later voices to undermine purported facts based on appeals to authority than it is to undermine the ability to think independently and draw valid conclusions from the available data.

 

[DrClaude]

Science education has drifted over the past decades from a method-centered approach to a fact-centered approach,

Is that really the case? Fifty years ago, teaching was definitely not hands-on, but rather rote learning.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Is that really the case? Fifty years ago, teaching was definitely not hands-on, but rather rote learning.

Forget about education in general - focus on middle and high school science education. And forget about rote vs hands-on. Focus on whether there is adequate emphasis on the path from data to conclusions. Most of my observations are from the 70s to the present. I have not investigated or spoken to many colleagues about their education experience in the 60s.

But in the 70s and 80s, a few things were much more common than today:
1. A careful evaluation of the historical experiments and data that underpinned important new theoretical developments. Yes, one might consider this "rote" learning, but more students learned about the experiments and even went over the data in class relating to essential developments like the law of definite proportions, Kepler's laws, Boyle's law, and Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiments. Yes, these still are "covered" today, but students are less likely to be required to summarize how the experiments support the emerging theory (or disprove the older theory) in graded work.
2. The number of science experiments that are performed during class time and require testing a hypothesis and writing a lab report presenting the data and discussing whether or not the hypothesis was supported. Back in the 70s and 80s middle and high school science students were much more likely to see 10-15 of these science labs each year. Today, worksheet based labs with far less thinking and analysis are more common.
3. Science fair participation at the school level is much lower today than in the 70s and 80s. Back in the 70s and 80s, at least half of high schools in my colleagues experience required science fair projects in at least some of their science courses. Today, other than magnet schools, private schools, and charter schools, schools that require science fair projects are uncommon. I've mentored projects at science fairs in a number of states, and it's the same handful of schools sending projects to these fairs year after year.

 

[OCR]

I have not investigated or spoken to many colleagues about their education experience in the 60s.

LMAO...They might be unable to relate "their education experience" from the 60s, in a manner, that would be

comprehensible to you, Doc... . .
You probably know what I mean... . . . . . → a link

.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

LMAO...They might be unable to relate "their education experience" from the 60s, in a manner, that would be

comprehensible to you, Doc... . .
You probably know what I mean... . . . . .

.

I should ask my pastor about it. He's a classic biker dude from the 60s (drugs and tats and jail time and everything) and has already shared some of his vivid memories from his math and history classes in the late 60s, so he probably remembers his science courses also. Funny you should link White Rabbit - the other day we were practicing some worship songs in the church and he comes in thinking I was playing the bass line from White Rabbit, since that's what it sounded like outside (low frequencies penetrate the building walls better.) Now this guy didn't even graduate from high school, but his science classes in the 60s were at least good enough that he's not a flat earther. (Come to think of it, most flat earthers are a lot younger, as are most YouTube viewers.)

 

[DrClaude]

@Dr. Courtney, you bring up some good points.

My problem with the role of education in this debate stems from the fact that I am of two minds about it. While I agree that the hands-on approach is an important component, at the same time too much self-reliance can lead astray. We see it here on PF, where some posters appear to need to redo old experiments to be convinced of certain things, like the existence of the electron. Fine if someone wants to do that, but to progress in scientific knowledge you have at one point to accept what others have done before. So teaching about old experiments would indeed be an important part of education.

The link I make with the flat-earthers is that many of them do their own experiments, but that leads them to wrong conclusions. Perceiving the world as flat doesn't mean it is.

 

[Bystander]

but to progress in scientific knowledge you have at one point to accept what others have done before. So teaching about old experiments would indeed be an important part of education.

"Educators" have adopted "discovery" methods in "teaching" these days, that is, the student is "guided" through a "discovery" process that may, or may not be valid (usually not).

 

[Andy Resnick]

But I suppose that if you can fall that easily into believing that the Earth is flat simply by watching these YouTube videos, than you'll believe in anything.

Zz.

As it happens, I recently watched the documentary "Behind the Curve":

https://www.behindthecurvefilm.com

It's great, and the end of the film has a significant event (no spoilers!). Based on the people interviewed for the film, I have to disagree with your premise- the root pathology lies much deeper than any particular belief and is not limited to 'weak-minded' individuals.

The pathology arises for two reasons, one of which is the loss of distinction between having a set of particular beliefs and creating a personal identity: in their case, the belief forms the basis of self-identity. Then, there is a strong disincentive to changing the belief that the Earth is flat because that means admitting their entire identity is false.

The second underlying reason is the psychosocial benefit. Rather then being a nameless cog in the giant modern industrial machine, they can literally create an alternate identity where they are a widely recognized leader (here is where social media comes in). Socially, these marginalized and alienated people can then satisfy the deep need for friendship and family which they are otherwise lacking.

So no- YouTube is not responsible for creating Flat-Earth believers.

 

[pinball1970]

The Flat Earth Society was founded in 1956. I don't think YouTube was around back then (and of course a belief in flat Earth predates that society). It IS likely true that MORE people now believe in flat Earth because of social media but social media is not the cause, stupidity is.

Unfortunately, You tube is easy and science is hard, Occam’s razor is boring conspiracy theories interesting.People can watch Justin Bieber, then watch a cat attacking the TV, then watch an interesting conspiracy video outlining how scientists and NASA especially are trying to keep everyone in the dark regarding the shape of the Earth age of the Earth and push the religion of evolution on children.All entertaining (besides Bieber)There was a discussion about this on a another thread about what the drivers are. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-flat-earth-belief-still-exist.960112/People can be wilfully ignorant.

 

[StatGuy2000]

There have been fringe beliefs that have permeated throughout a not insignificant proportion of the population throughout history, even in the presence of evidence that directly contradicts those beliefs. Among these include:

1. Belief in witchcraft
2. Belief in astrology or numerology
3. Belief in alien abduction, UFOs, alien visitation
4. Belief in the sasquatch(aka Bigfoot), the yeti, the Loch Ness monster, and other such creatures

These beliefs have often co-existed with, and take on similar characteristics, to religious beliefs. Belief in the flat Earth is similar to such beliefs and predate the existence of social media such as YouTube, but the presence of social media make such beliefs more readily visible to the broader society.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

There have been fringe beliefs that have permeated throughout a not insignificant proportion of the population throughout history, even in the presence of evidence that directly contradicts those beliefs. Among these include: ...

3. Belief in alien abduction, UFOs, alien visitation
4. Belief in the sasquatch(aka Bigfoot), the yeti, the Loch Ness monster, and other such creatures

It is a big mistake to put these beliefs in the same category as belief in a flat earth. It is essentially the difference between "unproven" and "disproven." Sure, a strong and compelling case can be made that stuff like alien abduction and sasquatch are unproven. But proving a negative (truly disproving these kinds of claims) is much harder. Even if one shows a number of cases to be exaggerations and frauds, one has not truly disproven all claims in the same category. The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. So disproving the absolute existence of a given being or phenomena is fundamentally different from disproving claims regarding the shape of an object known to exist (the earth) and that is amenable to repeatable observations.

The flat Earth claim is different not just in degree, but also in kind. The proof that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is really strong enough to say with confidence that flat Earth theories ARE, in fact, disproven.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

@Dr. Courtney, you bring up some good points.

My problem with the role of education in this debate stems from the fact that I am of two minds about it. While I agree that the hands-on approach is an important component, at the same time too much self-reliance can lead astray. We see it here on PF, where some posters appear to need to redo old experiments to be convinced of certain things, like the existence of the electron. Fine if someone wants to do that, but to progress in scientific knowledge you have at one point to accept what others have done before. So teaching about old experiments would indeed be an important part of education.

The link I make with the flat-earthers is that many of them do their own experiments, but that leads them to wrong conclusions. Perceiving the world as flat doesn't mean it is.

I am not really advocating to give undue weight in science education to a "hands on" approach. I think 15 high quality lab experiments each year is adequate for high school lab science courses and 14-15 high quality labs each semester are adequate for college lab science courses. (This is what most lab science courses currently claim in their descriptions and documentation submitted for accreditation.) I am advocating for more emphasis on science as an objective method and (given fixed time constraints), this requires less emphasis on rote learning of science "facts." But this emphasis needs to be increased both in the lecture and in the lab portions of a course. In the lecture portion, there needs to be more discussion and accountability relating to historical experiments. In the lab portion, there needs to be more rigorous testing of hypotheses and greater accountability when it is done poorly. More lab reports and fewer worksheets - and lower grades when the conclusions are not well supported by the data.

I have no problem teaching students to accept what other scientists have done before. But more emphasis should be on the process. We need to impart students with an attitude of "show me the data" and the ability to understand the reasoning behind how the experiments and their data lead to the rejection of previously held models and the acceptance of the new models. The "hands on" lab experiments build lab and experimental skills needed to better assess and evaluate important historical experiments and understand the data presented by others. There is no need for students to re-do every experiment of historical importance with their own hands. In contrast, they only need to perform sufficient experiments to know how the scientific method really works in each discipline. Students need to be much better at knowing which conclusions are valid from a given experiment, and which conclusions go beyond what is really supported by the data.

 

[pinball1970]

It is a big mistake to put these beliefs in the same category as belief in a flat earth. It is essentially the difference between "unproven" and "disproven." Sure, a strong and compelling case can be made that stuff like alien abduction and sasquatch are unproven. But proving a negative (truly disproving these kinds of claims) is much harder. Even if one shows a number of cases to be exaggerations and frauds, one has not truly disproven all claims in the same category. The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. So disproving the absolute existence of a given being or phenomena is fundamentally different from disproving claims regarding the shape of an object known to exist (the earth) and that is amenable to repeatable observations.

The flat Earth claim is different not just in degree, but also in kind. The proof that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is really strong enough to say with confidence that flat Earth theories ARE, in fact, disproven.

Kids do not make this distinction, not the ones who have had a poor start in education.

Vaccination and evolution have been ''proven" to be correct/work yet we are still discussing it with them.

You tube wiki and the internet are the new libraries schools and debating parlours. The difference is that anything can be uploaded and proliferate on the internet and it is instant, new videos every day, no filter no peer review no science police calling BS.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Kids do not make this distinction, not the ones who have had a poor start in education.

Another failure of science education (assuming these students passed their required science courses.)

Vaccination and evolution have been ''proven" to be correct/work yet we are still discussing it with them.

The main failures here are assertions from authority that amount to: believe it because teacher says so, book says so, government says so, or scientists say so. Students are not really taught to evaluate the evidence with the capability to decide for themselves. But, many retain the propensity to decide for themselves. (A good thing in a free, democratic society.) So education has failed.

But much public discourse also fails, for example, your lumping all vaccinations together, as if the risk(and cost)/benefit for all vaccines is the same for all patients. I'm more a proponent that the patient (or parents in the case of children) should assess the risks and benefits, read each vaccination label, discuss the risks and benefits with their personal physician, and decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis. My view is that cases where the usual childhood vaccinations (MMR, DTap, Polio) would be inadvisable are very rare. But most mandatory-vaxxers paint with such a broad brush that they leave the impression (or state it explicitly) that the risk(and cost)/benefit analysis is just as compelling for other vaccines such as HPV, meningitis, and the annual flu shot. I've heard some even advocate for more widespread vaccination against malaria other diseases that the CDC usually only recommends in cases of foreign travel or increased exposure risk. But I got to admit, I'm not vaccinated against HPV, and in years when my exposure risks are low (not teaching, etc.), I may skip the flu shot it it requires an additional trip to a provider and out of pocket expense. (Always got it when employer recommended and provided it on site for free.) Several providers were downright miffed at my wife and I when we opted to allow our teenage children (all aspiring scientists) to read the labels, assess their own risks and decide for themselves on vaccines that were only recommended on the schedule. These are students who have published original work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, scored in the mid-30s on the science portion of the ACT, and placed first at state level science fairs. Science education has not failed them. After reading the labels on certain vaccines, they were simply not convinced the benefits outweigh the risks. None of them believe in a flat Earth though, cause the evidence against a flat Earth is simply much more compelling than the evidence that the benefits of certain vaccines outweigh the risks.

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work. It's effectiveness varies widely year to year. By the CDC's own summary publication, effectiveness has varied from 10% to 60% from 2004 to the present. Pro-vaxxers who espouse that vaccines are "proven" to work should be embarrassed by such an ignorant, sweeping claim in light of the mediocre results for the flu vaccine. These vaccination shills and their exaggerated claims are part of the reason for ongoing skepticism regarding claims of vaccine effectiveness.
See:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

You tube wiki and the internet are the new libraries schools and debating parlours. The difference is that anything can be uploaded and proliferate on the internet and it is instant, new videos every day, no filter no peer review no science police calling BS.

Well, at least we have free speech. Again, it's the job of the education system to immunize students against pseudoscience. It appears the failure continues.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It is a big mistake to put these beliefs in the same category as belief in a flat earth. It is essentially the difference between "unproven" and "disproven." Sure, a strong and compelling case can be made that stuff like alien abduction and sasquatch are unproven. But proving a negative (truly disproving these kinds of claims) is much harder. Even if one shows a number of cases to be exaggerations and frauds, one has not truly disproven all claims in the same category. The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. So disproving the absolute existence of a given being or phenomena is fundamentally different from disproving claims regarding the shape of an object known to exist (the earth) and that is amenable to repeatable observations.

The flat Earth claim is different not just in degree, but also in kind. The proof that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is really strong enough to say with confidence that flat Earth theories ARE, in fact, disproven.

My intention in my post was to highlight that pseudoscientific beliefs are a long-standing point of concern within the American population (and no doubt in other countries) for decades, and belief in a flat Earth and conspiracy theories associated with it are similar ontologically to these other fringe beliefs.

You do raise a good point about the distinction between "unproven" and "disproven", and a fair case can be made that the existence of the sasquatch is unproven, as absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. That being said, given the fact that the US has been thoroughly explored geographically and the fact that no tangible evidence of the existence of such an animal has been presented for the past 50 years or so does tilt the evidence pretty strongly against the existence. So even in this example, the belief in the existence of the sasquatch (irrespective of the current evidence) is fundamentally quite similar to the belief in the flat earth.

The case is even stronger against the belief in alien abduction, and especially belief in astrology.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

My intention in my post was to highlight that pseudoscientific beliefs are a long-standing point of concern within the American population (and no doubt in other countries) for decades, and belief in a flat Earth and conspiracy theories associated with it are similar ontologically to these other fringe beliefs.

Since the first definition of ontology deals with metaphysics, I prefer to constrain my analysis to epistemology, and more specifically, with the scientific method. I regard most questions of metaphysics as beyond the scope of the scientific method, an approach akin to Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria.

You do raise a good point about the distinction between "unproven" and "disproven", and a fair case can be made that the existence of the sasquatch is unproven, as absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. That being said, given the fact that the US has been thoroughly explored geographically and the fact that no tangible evidence of the existence of such an animal has been presented for the past 50 years or so does tilt the evidence pretty strongly against the existence. So even in this example, the belief in the existence of the sasquatch (irrespective of the current evidence) is fundamentally quite similar to the belief in the flat earth.

I disagree from an epistemological viewpoint based on the scientific method. The proper field of science to establish the non-existence of a living organism on Earth is population biology, which is at best an inexact science in general, and even worse when accurately assessing very small populations and determining non-existence. There are so many documented examples of organisms believed to be extinct (zero population) and later rediscovered, that at best one should consider claims of absence to be probabilistic for a given hypothetical species. In contrast, the proof that the Earth is not flat is about as close as it gets to absolute as exists in science. Some references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon
https://www.care2.com/causes/10-animals-we-thought-were-extinct-but-arent.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/living-species-once-thought-extinct-4117748
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...thought-were-extinct-but-aren-t-a6726221.html
http://mentalfloss.com/article/522682/5-rediscovered-species-made-headlines-2017
https://io9.gizmodo.com/ten-extinct-animals-that-have-been-rediscovered-5822783

The case is even stronger for belief in alien abduction, and especially belief in astrology.

I presume you mean "against belief in alien abduction ..." The existence of hypothetical aliens on Earth seems subject to the same weaknesses as other cases purportedly showing that a given organism does not exist on earth.

Claims of alien abduction have a fundamentally different epistemology, because these are purportedly isolated events not subject to the usual scientific demands of repeatability. So there is an important distinction between what someone sincerely believes happened to them and what they can prove happened to objective third party observers. Since many of these purported abductions include purported involuntary sexual encounters it may be reasonable to use the same epistemology to investigate these purported assaults as we used to investigate purported sexual assaults by human assailants. Shall we conclude that the absence of evidence creating an inability to prove purported sexual assaults to objective third parties means the sexual assaults have been conclusively disproven? Of course, this is absurd.

Astrology is in yet another epistemological category, since it most commonly includes some supernatural assertions. Since supernatural assertions usually include claims of non-uniformity of natural law (miracles and spirit beings and such), they are outside of the realm of science to investigate. As Stephen Jay Gould explains:

Begin Exact Quote (Gould 1984, p. 11):

METHODOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS ACCEPTED BY ALL SCIENTISTS

1) The Uniformity of law - Natural laws are invariant in space and time. John Stuart Mill (1881) argued that such a postulate of uniformity must be invoked if we are to have any confidence in the validity of inductive inference; for if laws change, then an hypothesis about cause and effect gains no support from repeated observations - the law may alter the next time and yield a different result. We cannot "prove" the assumption of invariant laws; we cannot even venture forth into the world to gather empirical evidence for it. It is an a priori methodological assumption made in order to practice science; it is a warrant for inductive inference (Gould, 1965).

End Exact Quote (Gould 1984, p. 11)

Gould, Stephen Jay. "Toward the vindication of punctuational change."Catastrophes and Earth history (1984): 9-16.
also see:
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Is uniformitarianism necessary?" American Journal of Science 263.3 (1965): 223-228.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Time's arrow, time's cycle: Myth and metaphor in the discovery of geological time. Harvard University Press, 1987.

So, in summary, the flat Earth theory is really much more definitively rejected by the scientific method.

 

[Drakkith]

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work.

I'm not sure I'd say that. I don't see the issue as a simple 'proven vs non-proven' situation unless you elaborate what exactly it means for the vaccine to work.

 

[BillTre]

The proper field of science to establish the non-existence of a living organism on Earth is population biology, which is at best an inexact science in general, and even worse when accurately assessing very small populations and determining non-existence. There are so many documented examples of organisms believed to be extinct (zero population) and later rediscovered, that at best one should consider claims of absence to be probabilistic for a given hypothetical species.

At least there are now environmental DNA assays, but they are probably better for smaller organisms with greater population sizes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Critical thinking and the ability to judge sources has never been more important. Even rather intelligent people are duped and swayed by snake oil marketer pseudo-scientists.

 

[collinsmark]

I thought I should post this since I don't remember seeing other posts on this. Social media sites are at least making an effort these days (finally) to cut down on misinformation. At least it's a start.

YouTube winning race to clamp down on misinformation

 

[pinball1970]

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work. It's effectiveness varies widely year to year. By the CDC's own summary publication, effectiveness has varied from 10% to 60% from 2004 to the present. Pro-vaxxers who espouse that vaccines are "proven" to work should be embarrassed by such an ignorant, sweeping claim in light of the mediocre results for the flu vaccine. These vaccination shills and their exaggerated claims are part of the reason for ongoing skepticism regarding claims of vaccine effectiveness.
See:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

I was really referring to the science behind vaccination not the effectiveness with respect to individual cases, some are better than others granted.

Vaccinations programmes are intended for populations not individuals.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I was really referring to the science behind vaccination not the effectiveness with respect to individual cases, some are better than others granted.

Most medical professionals recommend that choices be made regarding individual drugs by independently considering the risks (reading the label) and benefits of each individual drug. Sure, there are some scientific principles that apply to all vaccinations. But there is also plenty of scientific information relative to each individual drug and the disease(s) against which each individual drug provides some level of protection. The implication that personal decisions against specific vaccinations always implies buying into pseudoscience or a misunderstanding of vaccination science is unwarranted. There may be cases where pseudoscience and misunderstanding play a role, but there are many cases where the choice is more based on due diligence in understanding the risks and benefits of each vaccination for the specific patient.

Vaccinations programmes are intended for populations not individuals.

Aah, the myth of herd immunity. Herd immunity is an important consideration for some vaccinations, but it is not important for others. How many people are documented to have caught rabies or tetanus from another person? If herd immunity is essential to the effectiveness of the malaria vaccine, why is there no general program for malaria vaccination in the US? The science behind all vaccinations is simply not the same. These sweeping generalizations are both bad science and bad information for the broader community, since this bad information is so easily debunked by the anti-vaxxers.

Here's a question especially for the men over 30 who think herd immunity is essential and there is a moral imperative to get vaccinated to protect the health of others: Have you gotten your HPV vaccine yet, or are you a hypocrite? HPV is a disease where the science definitely shows important contributions from herd immunity. But the vaccine is kinda pricey in the US ($200), and men are more likely to be transmission vectors than to suffer the worst consequences of the disease (cervical cancer). But whether a given man will even benefit the herd immunity of the population he is a part of depends strongly on his personal risk factors. Some men simply have a zero probability of being HPV vectors and have no possible benefit from the vaccination. Other men simply have a vanishingly small probability of being HPV vectors, so the vaccination costs are not recommended from a public health viewpoint.

So you see, the science behind vaccination really does need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. (As does the science behind all medications and drugs one may be considering. Read labels, talk to your personal physician(s), do your research, and be well informed medical consumers.)

The science behind vaccinations is much more complex and nuanced than the science disproving a flat earth.

 

[pinball1970]

The science behind vaccinations is much more complex and nuanced than the science disproving a flat earth.

I was not comparing the science behind vaccinations to flat Earth science/evidence, the initial point was the distrust of science and scientists.
Moon Landings may have been more appropriate or even 911 inside job, more of reference to rejecting the establishment.

In terms of vaccination programs, HPV was available to teenage girls a couple of years ago and is now available to young boys on the NHS I believe.
Flu is available free to high risk groups (myself included) and jabs relating to high risk areas overseas (Hep B Typhus Cholera etc) Rabies was optional

If my GP recommends I have a boost or new jab I will have it.

I am not a scientist but from the studies I have read and history of things like Smallpox Polio and the result of reading the label and opting out of MMR and resulting outbreaks/deaths I will say that OVERALL vaccination works and is proven to work

 

[pinball1970]

The science behind vaccinations is much more complex and nuanced than the science disproving a flat earth.

We are on flat Earth so I don't want to go too off topic with this, Ill send you some studies / data to you

 

[BillTre]

Aah, the myth of herd immunity. Herd immunity is an important consideration for some vaccinations, but it is not important for others.

Herd immunity is NOT a myth. This is an overstatement. The following argument is strictly limited to this overstatement aspect.
The most obvious cases for this involve herds of domesticated animals. Vets are familiar with this.
Rather, it is something that is an appropriate consideration in appropriate situations, but not in others.

The idea of herd immunity is that many individuals in the population in question have an immunity to infection. This prevents a cycle of infection within the population once an infection is introduced such that large numbers of infected individuals don't be the result.
The effectiveness of this approach can be affected by (@Dr. Courtney says) various biological characteristics of the situation, such as:

• current levels of infection in the population (rabies is low in most human populations)
  
• existence/non-existence of a disease in an area to make the probability of infection non-trivial
  
• different potential paths of infection in the population (humans are not often infected by other humans; new infections are usually from animals and human to human is not a common result after the initial infection)

However, in the case of rabies, an immunization (while not justified by herd immunity) can prevent an initial infection with a nasty disease that is unpleasant to have and treat. This an other immunizations are often given when people travel to areas with endemic rabies infections in animal populations. For example, I know of people who have gotten rabies immunizations before going to India for field work.

Another interesting example is the spread of mosquito born diseases like malaria and yellow fever as the mosquito vectors become more established in certain areas of the US. In this case human to mosquito to human transmission can become possible (with the presence of the mosquito vector) and considering herd immunity does become justified as the potential for infection increases, even if current rates of infection are low. In this case, an alternative (or additional) preventative measure is the eradication of the mosquito vectors (formerly using DDT, and now (possibly), possibly now using genetic techniques to sterilize (or otherwise interfere with) wild populations of mosquitos.

 

[BWV]

But much public discourse also fails, for example, your lumping all vaccinations together, as if the risk(and cost)/benefit for all vaccines is the same for all patients. I'm more a proponent that the patient (or parents in the case of children) should assess the risks and benefits, read each vaccination label, discuss the risks and benefits with their personal physician, and decide for themselves

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work. It's effectiveness varies widely year to year. By the CDC's own summary publication, effectiveness has varied from 10% to 60% from 2004 to the present. Pro-vaxxers who espouse that vaccines are "proven" to work should be embarrassed by such an ignorant, sweeping claim in light of the mediocre results for the flu vaccine. These vaccination shills and their exaggerated claims are part of the reason for ongoing skepticism regarding claims of vaccine effectiveness.
See:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

Alot of straw men there. Who are these mandatory vaxxers claiming the flu vaccine is perfect?

There are multiple benefits from the flu vaccine:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

One would think that a 65% reduction in the risk of death from flu in a healthy child is reason enough:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0403-flu-vaccine.html

 

[Drakkith]

We are on flat Earth so I don't want to go too off topic with this, Ill send you some studies / data to you

I sincerely hope you're not serious.

 

[BWV]

Also the idea that people should 'do their own science' is ridiculous. This is the problem, not the solution. No one can watch a few YouTube videos or google some article or even read a few real research papers and come to a better conclusion than the consensus of experts within a given discipline. People should absolutely not do their own research on vaccines or physics but trust the experts. The experts are not trustworthy because they are good people, they are trustworthy because the process of science works. Educate people to trust the process of science and do not expect them to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

What percentage of laypeople who post here with their own conclusions about physics are full of crap? Why would we expect a better outcome in other disciplines?

 

[kuruman]

The lack of belief in the sphericity of the Earth is quite harmless to the doubters and to those around them. I am much smaller than the Earth's radius and I can live my everyday life, do my job, do my chores, etc. pretending that the Earth is flat without any problems. Am I an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand? I think not. The only time when I gave some thought to the matter was a few moths ago when I flew non-stop from Dallas to Beijing and crossed the international date line over the Bering Strait. I was intently looking at the local time on the flight path display clock. In one blink it changed discontinuously from 3:14 pm to 10:14 am. I spent quite some time thinking about what it means for two people one mile apart across the line looking at the same sun and sky, one of them in the afternoon and one of them in the morning of the next day. It boggled my mind but the rest of the passengers around me seemed not to care. So I think that the flat Earth believers are quite harmless and that they should not be persuaded otherwise even if their ranks swell as a result of YouTube videos. The danger lies in the minds of those who don't believe that global warming is happening or that if it is, it's not caused by human activity. As for vaccines, I am old enough to bear the scar of small pox vaccination and guess what? Not only I did not get small pox, but also that dreadful disease has been eradicated. Thanks to all of us who were vaccinated, the younger generations don't have to worry about small pox and discuss instead the pros and cons of vaccination.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Also the idea that people should 'do their own science' is ridiculous. This is the problem, not the solution. No one can watch a few YouTube videos or google some article or even read a few real research papers and come to a better conclusion than the consensus of experts within a given discipline. People should absolutely not do their own research on vaccines or physics but trust the experts. The experts are not trustworthy because they are good people, they are trustworthy because the process of science works. Educate people to trust the process of science and do not expect them to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

What percentage of laypeople who post here with their own conclusions about physics are full of crap? Why would we expect a better outcome in other disciplines?

The issue with medications (including vaccines) is due diligence to understand how the medication applies to their own situation and to weigh the costs and risks vs the benefits. I simply recommend patients read the labels, understand the contraindications, discuss it with their personal physicians, and make informed decisions.

This is nothing like drawing a new scientific conclusion that applies to others. It is simply owning one's own medical care. Some examples:
1. Many medication labels specify specific contraindications, risks, and allergies. For example, the HPV label mentions sensitivity to yeast. Often, providers make decisions based on little more than the question, "Are you allergic to any medications?"
2. After popping positive on some A1C and fasting blood glucose numbers, my physician recommended Metformin, a common medication prescribed for diabetes and those at high risk (like me). But after some research, I learned that my identical twin brother had adverse reactions to this medication in ways that are unsurprising giving the guidance on the label. Discussing ALL the available information with my several medical professionals, it was decided that rather than risk these likely adverse reactions (since my personal biochemistry is very similar to my twin), the better course was to work to reduce my diabetes risk through diet and exercise without a medication that demonstrated adverse reactions in my identical twin. This course has proven successful for several years, and my personal physician is pleased with the course of action. Would you still recommend against personal research in this case? What evidence can you offer that I would not have had the same negative reactions to Metformin as my identical twin? Was a physicist in error to do medical research on his own behalf?
3. Once again, I popped positive on some blood cholesterol measurements, and my physicians first response was to prescribe a statin (Lipitor). Went into scientist mode and discovered (once again), that my identical twin had experienced some of the contraindications described on the label, but had been able to bring his cholesterol under control through specific lifestyle changes. With all the info, the consensus among my physicians was to skip the statins and work the diet and exercise angles. Working so far, but not as much proof of success yet as for skipping the Metformin.
4. The current consensus of experts (CDC) is that men of a certain age should be vaccinated against HPV. Have you made your appointment yet if you are included? However, most of the experts at the insurance companies disagree with the recommendation for adult men, so most insurance companies are not paying for it. Do you trust the CDC enough to pay out of pocket for $120 each for three vaccinations plus the cost of the doctor visits? "The CDC says so" just isn't good enough for me. I remain unvaccinated, as do my sons (and my daughter). My three children are accomplished scientists in their own right who have reviewed the available info (including the labels), considered the risks, costs, and benefits, and remain unconvinced for their unique situations.

It's not a matter of repeating the experiments (flat Earth or vaccinations), but weighing the information and deciding how it applies to one's own situation. Science is about "show me the data" not replacing one set of authorities (21st century scientists) for another (Catholic clerics of the middle ages.)

 

[Drakkith]

@Dr. Courtney I don't think that's the type of 'research' that BWV is talking about. There's a difference between deciding whether a medication is the best choice for you by using information gathered by medical science and conducting your own research to decide if vaccines 'work'.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

@Dr. Courtney I don't think that's the type of 'research' that BWV is talking about. There's a difference between deciding whether a medication is the best choice for you by using information gathered by medical science and conducting your own research to decide if vaccines 'work'.

Everyone needs to decide if a given medication is likely to "work" for their own circumstance and needs.

It is just as errant for pro-vaxxers to interpret "vaccines don't work" as 0% effectiveness as it is for anti vaxxers to interpret "vaccines do work" as purportedly 100% effectiveness.

For any medication to "work" or "not work" really means weighing the risks and costs vs. the benefits for a specific medication and patient in question. Thus I can say with complete validity "The HPV Vaccine will not work for me" though it may work well enough for the typical 12 year old American girl. Likewise, I can say, "The 40% expected effectiveness rate for the 2018-2019 flu vaccine does not work for me" given all the available information. But it would be just as wrong for me to say to you (being ignorant of your situation) "The HPV vaccine will not work for you" or "The flu vaccine will not work for you" as it would be for you to claim to me "You should get the HPV vaccine, because it works" or "You should get the flu vaccine because it works."

The question of a flat or round Earth is a universal truth that is the same for everyone. Weighing the risks and benefits of specific medications (including vaccines) is patient specific. I know scientists like all scientific truths to be universal, but the effectiveness and advisability of medications simply is not.