• @jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    83
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    None. Flat Earth is characterized by their denial of science. By performing empirical experiments then rejecting the results.

    That is antithetical to the very core of science. So any scientist who is given experimental data that contradicts their theory is, should make new theories.

    There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with saying the Earth is flat, and then thinking about the implications, and then verifying the implications match reality, and then when you get bad data you modify your hypothesis. We need creative and curious minds to challenge the status quo with new measurements data and science. It’s the rejection of empirical data that is the death of science

    • @Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      141 month ago

      I imagine there are many academics that won’t budge from their current beliefs even when confronted with proof.

          • ddh
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 month ago

            I think we’re talking No True Scientist here

      • @BertramDitore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 month ago

        Yup! I don’t understand the downvotes, because this absolutely happens. Especially when technology has progressed to enable us to answer certain questions that we couldn’t in the past. Old curmudgeonly academics can definitely be resistant to accepting that they’ve been wrong, even when confronted with proof. Sometimes the only way for old theories to die is for their proponents to die or retire. It’s a shame, but ego can be a massive problem in some disciplines.

        • @exocrinous
          link
          English
          11 month ago

          Einstein said that quantum mechanics are bunk, because “God does not play dice with the universe”. He was wrong.

      • SanguinePar
        link
        fedilink
        61 month ago

        Some, sure. And they are indeed acting like flat earthers. I think they’re likely to be the minority though and they’re not acting like scientists if they do that.

        • @Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          41 month ago

          Sorry, it’s just how I phrased the question. Sorry to be a Debbie downer but I was really interested in the answer.

          • SanguinePar
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            No need to apologise mate, sorry if my answer came across as curt, wasn’t intended that way :-)

    • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      51 month ago

      Sounds like you’re saying The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is flawed because those pesky stubborn holdouts weren’t scientists.

      • @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        161 month ago

        Holding out on a belief when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary is definitively unscientific. What don’t we call people who are unscientific about their methodologies?

        • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I guess I would have called them “bad scientists” – scientists who are bad at their job and hold everyone back. But still scientists.

          For instance they correctly applied the scientific method in most other cases. They just were blind to or intentionally obstructive to certain things.

          I try my best to be rational and apply Bayes’ theorem now and then, but I am sure I am still missing some invisible monsters which will make me look arrogant or foolish in the future. I don’t experiment much with software I am unfamiliar with, even if it could improve things at work. I do now and then of course, but should I allocate more time to trying new things? Yeah probably, but I don’t, and my job still gets done.

          • @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            21 month ago

            I don’t disagree that people can be stubborn and refuse to accept reality. This whole thread is known as Planck’s Principle.

            OP asked what “what possible misunderstanding of nature could make current academics look like flat earthers”. I think it’s implied that they’re talking about a scientific consensus today which we later find to be flawed, in which case I don’t think that anything would make current academics look like flat earthers. The difference is, literally no flat earther lived in such a time where the scientific consensus said the world was flat; they all became convinced of a falsehood after it was known to be a falsehood, which is orthogonal to Planck’s Principle.

            So I guess the answer to OP’s question is: if an academic becomes convinced of a falsehood with full knowledge of an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it is false, then they would look like a flat earther. But I don’t think that’s the situation they’ve laid out.

            • @Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              -11 month ago

              No, the possibility still exists because the current academic community continues to exist even into the future, where a breakthrough is possible. At the very least you are being pedantic.

              • @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                31 month ago

                An appropriate level of pedantry, I think. You asked for everyone for their opinion, it hardly seems appropriate for you to call me pedantic for providing just that.

                It also feels like maybe you didn’t pick up what I was putting down, because the “breakthrough” scenario is irrelevant. The important part is: did science already accept X as true (read: highly probable) at the time that a person decided they believe X is false? Because to me, that’s what makes someone “look like a flat earther”. But I can’t fault someone for not being convinced by some evidence, and choosing instead to stick with (what they believe to be) a null hypothesis.

                • @Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  You’re using too strict a definition of what makes a flat earther. Flat eathers are characterized by many different things but their defining feature is their refusal accept evidence that disproves their belief. My phrasing does not disclude this interpretation.

                  • @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 month ago

                    And see, I think that’s too broad, because literally everyone is guilty of holding onto a belief that they formed before they had enough information, however small.

                    Have you ever driven one route from point A to B, but taken a completely different route from B to A, both directions believing you are taking the fastest route? Maybe it’s doublethink, maybe we just got in a habit and never reconciled the conflicting beliefs, or maybe we think the evidence we’ve been presented with is not a representative sample of reality. Maybe a map shows one route to be obviously faster both ways, but you think “well once you factor in the lights, and the number of turns, and the traffic at the times of day I take each route, it makes sense to take different routes each way. These are hard to account for on a map, and how I do it feels shorter, so I’m going to keep doing what I think is best regardless of what this data says.”

                    To me, the “defining feature” of a flat earther is accepting a false belief after it’s been amply demonstrated to you to be false. It’s not something you didn’t have enough evidence about, but now you do, it’s something you had overwhelming evidence for, but reject it all. That is not something we all do every day, that is potentially delusional behavior.