You raise an interesting point; I don't think the intent of the post-modernists that interpreted Kuhn to say scientific truth is a social construct is to say any view of reality is equally valid. It does point out though that there are competing views and methodologies that serve man better or equally and they should be considered. I believe it also strongly suggests that these centers of power should be open to all and not restricted to one tradition or world-view. It should be just as reasonable to gather government grants to prove the earth is flat rather than to show it is round, and in doing the opposite we are actually hurting the scientific view as well as competing views as well as the idea of an open society.
Scientific funding is really just a matter of someone seeing the value in the research. If you want corporate sponsorship, you’ll need to find a company that sees some benefit from it. If you want government grants, then the government should be able to justify why they should spend public money on it.
Neither seems likely for flat earth research, so I guess that leaves finding wealthy flat earthers and crowd funding.
Admittedly, any flat earth research faces the additional problem of finding a university and/or scientists willing to be associated with it.
Some of these problems you mention are not scientific ones; one could argue that the argument centering around climate change is not a scientific one - we can say well enough that "global" warming is happening. Its a human question around whether we want to diverge resources to handle it and if such diversion would compromise other values we hold. However, given the priveledged place science holds in our society and its access to power, this argument is instead not had and we have to play in sciences ball park and present arguments against it in that tradition.
Climate change is both scientific and political. What we do about it is a political decision, but we need science to make an informed choice. ie. we need to know how it will impact us, and what it would take to limit it or deal with it.
I feel a similar argument is happening around abortion; its not about when science says a fetus is alive - its a human issue that is far more complex than this. Society has simply moved the argument to this venue as it disproportionately holds power.
Abortion is a very tricky issue. The only thing I have to say on it is that by all accounts it’s a very traumatic experience that no one does lightly. So however the debate goes and whatever changes in law might happen, harassing the women going through with it is fucking unacceptable (I’m not accusing you of advocating that, btw. It just makes me angry, so I had to vent).
My evidence towards my view presented earlier is really just the evidence that is used to support Kuhn and Feyerabend.
I do believe, and it is the text book example in fact, that this is what happened with the heliocentric model. If you look into the history, at the time it was accepted it could not explain the universe nearly as well as the dominant view of the time - especially along empirical lines. Most of Galileo's arguments were rhetorical tricks, inaccurate, or relied on some other non-scientific basis. His scientific basis also failed to be supported by knowledge of optics of the time. Ironically, the work stemming from Copernicus at the time had to make use of more epicycles to explained already noted empirical data than the epicycle model. It also predicted an incorrect number of tides a day, which should have put it out of the running right away.
And of course Kepler refined Corpernican model so epicycles weren’t needed. Newton’s provides a mechanism to explain it (I know, I know, not on subatomic level). Einstein refined it further. These are the big famous ones, but plenty of other contributed as well. Each of these steps has been verified by countless observations.
That doesn’t look “unsolved problems bubbling up” to me. It looks like problems getting solved.
The view was largely taken upon due to social reasons more than it being suited to the task. Of course, this is how it must be in the large majority of paradigm shifts like it as the new view has not had anytime to gather empirical basis and then must rely almost solely on ad hoc hypotheses and later 'puzzle solving' to attempt to build to the accuracy of the previous paradigm.
Our view is as legitimate as the heliocentric model was when it was gaining support in comparison to the round earth model corollary of the time of the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't say much, but it is of interest to note.
Interesting take.
I don’t claim to know exactly how and why the copernican system became favoured. Apparently it was simpler to calculate and many astronomers at the time started using it for convenience without really agreeing with it. Hence Tycho Brahe’s sort of compromise. Only later did it become popular to think of it as literally true.
So that put the flat earth on par with Copernicus? Not really, because Copernicus had a working model, and you don’t seem to think it’s necessary to agree on one.