Flat Earth Education

Should Flat Earth Theory be taught as an alternative theory in schools, and the controversy of the two theories brought to light? Creationists seem to stir up a enough drama to have their beliefs considered for possible educational potential in this way, and Flat Earth Theory has a much firmer scientific grounding than creationism, which appart from some shaky "arguments from design" is almost entirely faith-based.

To RE fanatics - please don't clog this thread with "NO BECAUSE ITS WRONG LOL", try and make a case for FET being obviously wrong enough to not be mentioned in educational curriculums in the same way as intelligent design is mentioned alongside evolution, bearing in mind that intelligent design has pretty much no coherent scientific grounding, just "boy that flower sure is complex it must have been made", whereas FET has tomes of legitimate scientific literature and a firm basis in physical reality.

If it gives the students a better understanding of their world, then by all means yes.

If it gives the students a better understanding of their world, then by all means yes.

I'm all for people finding out of their own accord, providing they're at least presenting with the evidence and the contrasting arguments. If we tried to force FET as THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH, we'd be just as bad as the conspiracy dupes.

Even if students concluded that Flat Earth Theory is ultimately wrong, it might at least hone their critical thinking skills and make them question the validity of "taken as a given" arguments, which is pretty much what an education should be doing.

...

...

That's deep, man.

I don't think it should, just as I don't think creationism should. Why? Because they both contradict the prevailing theories while having a minimum of evidence. "Controversy?" Unlike creationism/evolution, there is no controversy over the shape of the Earth, becase FE has nowhere near the popular support of creationism. Unless FE gets their numbers up, all of the evidence in the world (no pun) won't let it be taught in public schools.

Are public schools the places for minority theories to be taught? Not quite. Schools exist to teach the common knowledge to our students. You may call it indoctrination; I call it doing their job. FE is not mainstream or even a considerable alternative because the database for FE knowledge is much more limited than the RE database. It is the responsibility of the individual, not the institution, to search for alternative theories.

To summarize:
Should it be taught? No, because if RE evidence doesn't fit in with what the student sees, it's her/his responsibility to investigate.
Will it be taught? No, because there are a lot less FEers than there are Christians.

Quote from: DakaSha on April 12, 2007, 06:16:18 AM

...

That's deep, man.

it pretty much sums it up. i propose that we teach astology, levitation, all forms of parapsychology, ufology, Cryptozoology and about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. some of those have ALOT more going for them then your FE crap

it pretty much sums it up. i propose that we teach astology, levitation, all forms of parapsychology, ufology, Cryptozoology and about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. some of those have ALOT more going for them then your FE crap

They don't though. Almost all the examples you listed rely on something which is completely unexplainable within a scientific framework. The FE model is robust and based solely in physical reality.

It can't be taught because the whole thoery falls apart if you take the conspiracy out of it, and 'the government' aren't about tostart teaching a thoery that would expose this conspiracy, and if there is no conspiracy then it would be flat out rubbish, so whether FE is real or not, it won't be taught in public schools, perhaps there may be some uni's ready to give it thought, given the stupid courses they offer already

It can't be taught because the whole thoery falls apart if you take the conspiracy out of it, and 'the government' aren't about tostart teaching a thoery that would expose this conspiracy, and if there is no conspiracy then it would be flat out rubbish, so whether FE is real or not, it won't be taught in public schools, perhaps there may be some uni's ready to give it thought, given the stupid courses they offer already

Well that's a good point. There's pretty much no chance of it being stuck into any curriculums which are under government control as long as the conspiracy continues to exist.

I wouldn't say that the whole theory falls down without the conspiracy though. True, without the conspiracy we'd eventually be able to verify FET empirically by studying the ice wall and the Universal Accelerator, but that wouldn't suddenly make it wrong unless we went there and found out it was round.

If there's no conspiracy then there are hundreds, nay thousands of images of the Earth appearing round from space

I'm a RE'er, but I think FE...maybe not should, but I wouldn't be against it... be introduced in schools.  FE, while I still don't see why anyone believes in it, at least makes you think.  It shows you not to believe just what you're told as fact, but instead to try to prove said fact.  It's made me look up how to prove such things, and I've even learned directly from here from people such as TheEngineer and yourself.  All in all it's a different way to look at the world around you and at least makes you think.

Well, I know plenty of Christians/people who think the earth was intelligently created/people who believe in god, but I don't know ANYONE who believes the earth is flat... never in my life have I met anyone who believed that. You guys are the first I've seen.

So no, I don't think it should be taught in schools.

I wouldn't say that the whole theory falls down without the conspiracy though. True, without the conspiracy we'd eventually be able to verify FET empirically by studying the ice wall and the Universal Accelerator, but that wouldn't suddenly make it wrong unless we went there and found out it was round.

If there's no conspiracy then there are hundreds, nay thousands of images of the Earth appearing round from space

Mhm.

I don't think intelligent design should be taught in mainstream schools.  I feel the same way about FE for the same reasons.

Although I have to say that what CommonCents said makes sense.  There's not enough development of lateral logic skills in school, and introducing this concept in a purely academic sense is a great way to get kids to think outside the box.

ROFL.

It comes from a religous site that, like this one, believes the earth is flat.

It's from http://fayfreethinkers.com/

Although I have to say that what CommonCents said makes sense.

I think you meant that what I said makes Cents!

I'm so funny.

You're a laugh riot!

Quote from: DakaSha on April 12, 2007, 07:06:17 AM

it pretty much sums it up. i propose that we teach astology, levitation, all forms of parapsychology, ufology, Cryptozoology and about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. some of those have ALOT more going for them then your FE crap

They don't though. Almost all the examples you listed rely on something which is completely unexplainable within a scientific framework. The FE model is robust and based solely in physical reality.

The FE model isn't based on physical reality... it's based on 'scientific' ASSUMPTION. Assumptions aren't reality.
Conspiracies aren't physical reality. Rowbotham's experiments aren't physical reality. All of these are just assumptions. If FE was ever taught in school, there would be the biggest uproar, and rightly so.

What Dogplatter is trying to say is,

Since we can teach a false science (round-earthism, evolution, safe-sex), shouldn't we be able to teach actual science.


My answer is no, reality is too difficult for a public school teacher. We better stick with the more "fuzzy" sciences.

What Dogplatter is trying to say is,

Since we can teach a false science (round-earthism, evolution, safe-sex), shouldn't we be able to teach actual science.


My answer is no, reality is too difficult for a public school teacher. We better stick with the more "fuzzy" sciences.

The only "fuzzy" thing on planet Earth is your brain.

Quote from: narcberry on April 12, 2007, 02:08:17 PM

What Dogplatter is trying to say is,

Since we can teach a false science (round-earthism, evolution, safe-sex), shouldn't we be able to teach actual science.


My answer is no, reality is too difficult for a public school teacher. We better stick with the more "fuzzy" sciences.

The only "fuzzy" thing on planet Earth is your brain.

That explains why you can believe the earth is round, you clearly have experienced 0% of earth.

Quote from: Jesus Reborn on April 12, 2007, 02:10:39 PM

Quote from: narcberry on April 12, 2007, 02:08:17 PM

What Dogplatter is trying to say is,

Since we can teach a false science (round-earthism, evolution, safe-sex), shouldn't we be able to teach actual science.


My answer is no, reality is too difficult for a public school teacher. We better stick with the more "fuzzy" sciences.

The only "fuzzy" thing on planet Earth is your brain.

That explains why you can believe the earth is round, you clearly have experienced 0% of earth.

I'll guarantee I've visited more places on the planet than you.

Why would you make a guarantee that you have no way of assuring?

Why would you make a guarantee that you have no way of assuring?

The same reason you believe the Earth is Flat... I assumed.

As an RE'er, I don't think it's a bad idea for it to be taught in schools. I mean for like a week in grade 6, maybe. It prepares kids to analyze everything they see and make decisions based on evidence. It also gives them a healthy dose of skepticism.

This thread is making me laugh harder than any movie I've ever seen.
Seriously.
But then, I haven't seen many movies..

Hahaha!  What one would they teach?  The version with the infinite plane, the one with the earth/sun/moon all having the same mass, the one with the wedges in the sea, or maybe the one with the shadow object?  Hell, this would be impossible.  There are sooooo many variations in the FE model, teachers would say one thing one day, and another the next.  Kind of like Tom Bishop's responses to questions.

EIRD just WTFPWND Tom!

Should Flat Earth Theory be taught as an alternative theory in schools, and the controversy of the two theories brought to light? Creationists seem to stir up a enough drama to have their beliefs considered for possible educational potential in this way, and Flat Earth Theory has a much firmer scientific grounding than creationism, which appart from some shaky "arguments from design" is almost entirely faith-based.

To RE fanatics - please don't clog this thread with "NO BECAUSE ITS WRONG LOL", try and make a case for FET being obviously wrong enough to not be mentioned in educational curriculums in the same way as intelligent design is mentioned alongside evolution, bearing in mind that intelligent design has pretty much no coherent scientific grounding, just "boy that flower sure is complex it must have been made", whereas FET has tomes of legitimate scientific literature and a firm basis in physical reality.

Idiots...The earth is round!!!!!!