At a certain point in arguing with intransigent people, you realize they’re unreasonable on this topic and no evidence, no matter how plentiful or how good, will ever convince them. And that’s flerfers at this point — a crowd of people not worth talking to, because they won’t engage in good faith.
An example is the flerfer saying the 24-hour sun in Antarctica means nothing and the other saying he doesn’t know what it means. Okay, then why did you guys even come? If you weren’t going to respect the results, i.e. this result means this and that result means that, why did you participate in the experiment at all? Do you think a scientist just changes his mind about what results mean when he doesn’t like the results he gets?!
No point talking to such people. Walk away. That’s it.
Thanks for your comment, Joshua! I agree with much of it. TFE was never going to convince the bulk of flat-earthers, but at least it was an opportunity to air out some of their more intractable claims. The difficulty and expense of reaching Antarctica was really the only reason they’ve been able to get away with claims like the one about the UN guarding the fictitious Ice Wall around the flat disk.
I’d just add to your statement about how a scientist behaves with the qualification “a good scientist.” Certainly no scientist should manipulate results for a desired outcome, but it does happen. Scientists are human too and can err in all the usual human ways.
Yeah, it does happen. A lot easier to get away with in “soft” social sciences than in hard sciences. I think the trouble now is that peer review can’t keep up with the rate of publication. Well-intentioned scientists also miss possibilities and make honest mistakes while transcribing and interpreting data, and then it goes to publication without a solid check.
At a certain point in arguing with intransigent people, you realize they’re unreasonable on this topic and no evidence, no matter how plentiful or how good, will ever convince them. And that’s flerfers at this point — a crowd of people not worth talking to, because they won’t engage in good faith.
An example is the flerfer saying the 24-hour sun in Antarctica means nothing and the other saying he doesn’t know what it means. Okay, then why did you guys even come? If you weren’t going to respect the results, i.e. this result means this and that result means that, why did you participate in the experiment at all? Do you think a scientist just changes his mind about what results mean when he doesn’t like the results he gets?!
No point talking to such people. Walk away. That’s it.
Thanks for your comment, Joshua! I agree with much of it. TFE was never going to convince the bulk of flat-earthers, but at least it was an opportunity to air out some of their more intractable claims. The difficulty and expense of reaching Antarctica was really the only reason they’ve been able to get away with claims like the one about the UN guarding the fictitious Ice Wall around the flat disk.
I’d just add to your statement about how a scientist behaves with the qualification “a good scientist.” Certainly no scientist should manipulate results for a desired outcome, but it does happen. Scientists are human too and can err in all the usual human ways.
Yeah, it does happen. A lot easier to get away with in “soft” social sciences than in hard sciences. I think the trouble now is that peer review can’t keep up with the rate of publication. Well-intentioned scientists also miss possibilities and make honest mistakes while transcribing and interpreting data, and then it goes to publication without a solid check.