Why does flat Earth belief still exist?

[ZapperZ]

We are in violent agreement here Zz. The journals themselves have said that there's a problem in this area that they need to fix.

I think we have a disagreement and a misunderstanding. I'm not in agreement with your conclusion, because I've brought up examples that falsified that conclusion. Maybe it is different in different fields, but I don't see this as a problem in the physics journals.

Zz.

 

[jedishrfu]

I think we have a disagreement and a misunderstanding. I'm not in agreement with your conclusion, because I've brought up examples that falsified that conclusion. Maybe it is different in different fields, but I don't see this as a problem in the physics journals.

Zz.

Yes, my apologies, that could well be true. My niece is a PhD biologist/vet specializing in epigenetics and I'm citing her experience in the field.

 

[TeethWhitener]

The main and obvious difference here is that scientists DO change their minds, and scientific paradigms DO make dramatic change, once clear and convincing empirical evidence is available.

Such seismic change seldom, or never happen, in beliefs that are based on faith, for example.

Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
Also see any religious schism ever. My point was not with science itself, but rather with scientists. They are susceptible to cognitive bias, just like anyone else.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Yeah, I remember those Crazy Eddie ads they were hilarious but there was never a store nearby to actually visit...

This is the crazy eddie I immediately thought of too

 

[Bystander]

On a personal note, Feynman's a little more optimistic than I am that scientists no longer fall into this trap.

My point was not with science itself, but rather with scientists. They are susceptible to cognitive bias, just like anyone else.

+2

 

[ZapperZ]

Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
Also see any religious schism ever. My point was not with science itself, but rather with scientists. They are susceptible to cognitive bias, just like anyone else.

I never said they don't. However, "cognitive bias" does not survive when there's empirical evidence to the contrary, at least, not for very long. Millikan had clear bias against Einstein's photoelectric effect model. He even stated it blatantly in his papers. But we have a referee : Mother Nature. She doesn't care what type of bias you have, because she has the ultimate final word.

Unlike other areas, in science, there IS a "right" and "wrong" answer.

Zz.

 

[HAYAO]

Yes we also get a 6 day Creation, geocentric universe, the moon is a “light,” bats are birds…
Those claims took a long time to unravel and counter with scientific evidence much to the distress of the various religions.
To be fair to the Bible (which actually describes the Earth's shape as “Flattened out like a seal” Job 38:14) ancient cultures had no reason to suspect the Earth was anything but flat, far less a spinning ball. It was only when mariners noticed masts from ships appearing first from a distance in the sea that something was amiss.
Perhaps the weird shapes on the moon too during its cycle?

This is a very fair point and I must agree to it.

I am in no way judging the writers of the bible and the believers of the bible in the days as stupid or anything. You are absolutely right; they had good reason to believe Earth was flat. Although heliocentrism and geocentrism is not explicitly written on the bible, I also believe that people back in the days were legitimate to believe in geocentrism. In fact, geocentrism is still mathematically plausible, although physically not.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Can you add more here to explain the differences you saw?

There is nothing in the bible which might underpin some “Flat Earth” beliefs. Verse Job 38:14 has nothing to do with the “geometric” shape of the earth, and it includes no phrase “Flattened out like a seal”.

Verse Job 38:14 reads, for example, in the New International Version of the bible: “The Earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.”

A biblical commentary, for example the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, says:

“Another charming figure. Under the light of morn the earth, which was formless in the darkness, takes shape like the clay under the seal.
It is changed as clay under the seal, And they stand forth as a garment.
In the first clause the words are lit. as seal-clay. All things with clear-cut impression and vivid colouring stand forth under the light, and together form a various, many-coloured garment, in which the Earth is robed.”

 

[pinball1970]

I am in no way judging the writers of the bible and the believers of the bible in the days as stupid or anything. You are absolutely right; they had good reason to believe Earth was flat. Although heliocentrism and geocentrism is not explicitly written on the bible, I also believe that people back in the days were legitimate to believe in geocentrism. In fact, geocentrism is still mathematically plausible, although physically not.

I did not like your post just because you agreed with me but because you pointed out that geocentrism young Earth flat Earth and creation go together and there are verses to support those views.

Totally agree the writers were attempting to describe the universe, no problem with that.

Anyway looking at motivation for this on the net a few things seem to come out and religion does not seem to be the driving force on this one.

1/General mistrust of science, they (flat earthers) see scientists and the organisations money, power and elitism keeping the rest of us in the dark. See also moon landings vaccinations 911 inside job

2/Meme syndrome- Once a really stupid idea gets going sometimes its difficult to counter especially when the evidence you can use is the source of the distrust. The rise of social media/ z list celebrity users has put stupid idea proliferation into hyper drive.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/...78/bob-earth-flat-twitter-neil-degrasse-tyson

3/Science contradicting scripture therefore science has to be wrong.

 

[davenn]

There seems to be some imprecision regarding verse Job 38:14. Have a look at https://biblehub.com/job/38-14.htm and the comments at https://biblehub.com/commentaries/job/38-14.htm.

indeed ... no real reference to the Earth being flat

 

[fresh_42]

The bible wasn't peer reviewed. I think we shouldn't take it as example. As far as I know, flat earthers do not use it as their primary reference. The topic here is why people refuse to accept the obvious, not what's written in the bible - the more as, and I take the bet, nobody here can read the original, i.e. it's even second hand knowledge.

 

[HAYAO]

I did not like your post just because you agreed with me but because you pointed out that geocentrism young Earth flat Earth and creation go together and there are verses to support those views.

This is totally not my point, and I did not say this...

 

[pinball1970]

This is totally not my point, and I did not say this...

I think I made a point that was actually my point. Apologies.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think I made a point that was actually my point. Apologies.

That’s a very sharp observation.

Zz.

 

[skyshrimp]

Thread reported.

It's wrong to ridicule flat Earth crackpot nut jobs.

Planet Earth is round AF guys.

 

[pinball1970]

That’s a very sharp observation.

Zz.

Rather than put points in people's mouths I have decided to get information from the horses mouth. Or a few of them anyway. I've asked a friend who also happens to be a flat Earth YEC. His followers are similar so
I will hopefully get some insight on motivation. I personally think this more of a moon landings Denying scenario rather than religious motivation but let's see.

 

[ZapperZ]

Rather than put points in people's mouths I have decided to get information from the horses mouth. Or a few of them anyway. I've asked a friend who also happens to be a flat Earth YEC. His followers are similar so
I will hopefully get some insight on motivation. I personally think this more of a moon landings Denying scenario rather than religious motivation but let's see.

It appears that you may have missed my pun.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

BTW, in case people missed it, or forgot about it, there is a related thread on this topic:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/fun-experiments-to-disprove-flat-earth.941602/

Zz.

 

[pinball1970]

It appears that you may have missed my pun.

Zz.

No i didnt miss it. Points sharp got it.

 

[TeethWhitener]

the moon is a “light,”

In the Quran, the light from the sun and the light from the moon are described using different words, where the sun’s light is described as “brightness in itself” and the moon’s is “brightness through another.”

 

[pinball1970]

In the Quran, the light from the sun and the light from the moon are described using different words, where the sun’s light is described as “brightness in itself” and the moon’s is “brightness through another.”

Which verse?

 

[TeethWhitener]

Which verse?

10:5
https://quran.com/10/5

 

[pinball1970]

10:5
https://quran.com/10/5

That's not the one I have but probably best not try and get into that here.

 

[TeethWhitener]

That's not the one I have but probably best not try and get into that here.

The point is that the sun’s light and the moon’s light are described using different words (diya’ vs nur).

 

[pinball1970]

The point is that the sun’s light and the moon’s light are described using different words (diya’ vs nur).

The moon is not as bright has phases and has visible features so the writers may have tried to encorporate that. I don't read Arabic so I don't know what the direct translation would be.

Are there any other flat Earth refs in other ancient literature? Norse?

 

[mfb]

The Ancient Greeks knew the Moon was illuminated by the Sun already. They tried to estimate the distance to the Sun that way (although it was too far away for a good estimate).
The bright side of the Moon's phase always points towards the Sun and lunar eclipses have the shadow of Earth. It doesn't take much thought to figure that out.