Then many are so conspiracy minded (conspiritards if you like) that they assume that "authority" is and always has been lying to them.(http://oi66.tinypic.com/j5vwbb.jpg)
what do you think about people that have medical practices imposed on them?That depends on the circumstances.
But my question is where does science diverge from the truth.Science diverges from the truth in 3 aspects.
at certain points in the mainstream explanation of the world, we have built on false premises(gravity being one).Which is why these premises are typically tested to the best of our ability. Gravity is one example of this which has been quite rigorously tested. All the evidence indicates it is real.
I think for many people exploring the flat earth, they have had experiences that show them there is MORE to the story.While I think something quite different and it varies from person to person.
But my question is where does science diverge from the truth. And why are things portrayed in the light that they are without more of the story being told. My personal belief is that at certain points in the mainstream explanation of the world, we have built on false premises(gravity being one). How extreme the divergence is, I cannot say. I think for many people exploring the flat earth, they have had experiences that show them there is MORE to the story.
I don't know about all that, but it doesn't really change my mind. I'm hardly prepared to debate much of that at this point in time.
I don't know about all that, but it doesn't really change my mind. I'm hardly prepared to debate much of that at this point in time.And that appears to be the big problem with FEers (and numerous other groups).
But my question is where does science diverge from the truth. And why are things portrayed in the light that they are without more of the story being told. My personal belief is that at certain points in the mainstream explanation of the world, we have built on false premises(gravity being one). How extreme the divergence is, I cannot say. I think for many people exploring the flat earth, they have had experiences that show them there is MORE to the story.
(Please let's not get into the anti-vax thing.)
I think what you're describing touches on the root of FE belief for many individuals. "...why are things portrayed in the light that they are without more of the story being told?"
I think of it like this... try to explain to a 3 year old why things fall to the ground. "Everything falls to the ground. We call it gravity." is good enough.
Then explain gravity to a grade-school child and it becomes, "Gravity is the force that pulls everything towards the Earth. The Moon and Sun have gravity too."
When you get to high school it becomes, "Newton's equation for universal gravitation is..."
And finally in college, you might get into general relativity.
If you move on to graduate school, you might study deeper than that, but for now, that's as far as we're really certain about.
The light things are portrayed in comes down to the target audience. Grade school kids don't have the foundations to deal with Einstein's equations yet, so we don't talk to them about that.
Add to that the chaos of different teachers dealing with different situations, and it's really hard to predict what you're going to end up with.
I think this may be the root of many people's dissatisfaction with science. Just tonight I was watching someone "debunk" Brian Cox. Brian Cox starts off with the usual, "under gravity, all things fall at the same speed." This immediately set the "debunker" off. Cox was trying to start off simplistically, and we was just about to add in a layer of complexity to it, but it was already too late. Moments later, Cox goes on to demonstrate that objects actually fall at different speeds, and then he starts to explain that air resistance causes that difference. But again, it was too late. The "debunker" was up and ranting again about how gravity doesn't apply to real-world situations so it's useless and Brian Cox just admitted it on TV.
Hopefully, in the calmness of reading this you can see what happened. Brian Cox wasn't lying to anyone. He was stating a fact (an accurate fact), and he gave it just a moment to sink in before complicating the situation with another fact.
Before I go on, let's all take a deep breath and run down what we ALL agree on (even the FEs):
1) Anything heavier than air is pulled down towards the ground.
2) Anything moving through the air feels a force resisting it's speed in the air.
These 2 simple facts are not in dispute.
As a means of communicating clearly #1 is called "gravity" and #2 is called "air resistance" or "drag".
Now the non-intuitive part that Brian Cox was trying to guide the audience through is this... The force imparted by gravity (#1 above) is such that, in the absence of any other force, all objects accelerate towards the ground at the same rate. This is non-intuitive because we always experience things falling under the influence of air resistance (#2 above).
But the "debunker" wanted to say that #1 is entirely the result of density and gravity (Newton's or Einstein's observations of gravity) is an illusion. But pause for a moment here and re-read #1 and #2 above. I didn't need to invoke any of that to get us here. Objects fall... that's all we need to get here. Clearly the "debunker" was NOT upset about masses attracting each other. He was upset that Brian Cox made an obvious oversimplification and then went on to expand upon that. At that point, the learning process was completely shut down, and we had left was ranting.
So tell us... how did you react to Brian Cox's explanation of that? If you also found it objectionable (as the "debunker" did), could you tell us how to present this better?
I don't know about all that, but it doesn't really change my mind. I'm hardly prepared to debate much of that at this point in time.And that appears to be the big problem with FEers (and numerous other groups).
They know or understand very little and are not in a position to debate, but their lack of knowledge/understanding makes them assume something and claim it in various places, making other people have the same questions and jump to the same wrong conclusions.
If you don't know, that is fine, but it means you should try to find out before forming opinions, especially if those opinions are those who have been studying it for a significant portion of their lives are wrong.
They know or understand very little and are not in a position to debate, but their lack of knowledge/understanding makes them assume something and claim it in various places, ...
I had already said giving children vaccines is acceptable.
Giving them to adults is another issue, but if you don't get vaccinated for communicable diseases then the community has a right to refuse you entry.
I watched the debunk the flat earth videos and was not convinced. It seems to me that most scientists would never even consider wether the earth was flat in the first place, do you disagree?The "scientists" of old did.
But consider this video if you please.This video relies upon the current understanding of the world, i.e. not a flat Earth.
"Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation"
He says that gravity cant conglomerate planets.And that seems to be all.
I actually didn't watch many debunk vids, if anyone wants to suggest one...I prefer logical arguments to videos.
In my suppressed inventions book, there is an article that suggests proper nutrition is always over looked. I believe that doctors don't learn nutrition in school, but Hippocrates said "let thy food be thy medicine", and they all take a "Hippocratic oath".The Hippocratic oath is effectively to heal to the best of your judgement rather than to injure or damage, not to follow everything Hippocrates suggested. That can even allow them to blatantly lie to a patient.
I watched the debunk the flat earth videos and was not convinced. It seems to me that most scientists would never even consider wether the earth was flat in the first place, do you disagree?
I actually didn't watch many debunk vids, if anyone wants to suggest one...