Comments by "Christian Baune" (@programaths) on "Why do people laugh at FLAT EARTHERS! (Part 2)" video.

@zed1stwizard More and more people skim texts with "apriori" and end up reading quite the opposite and not even getting the salient point as a result. Then they go with personal attacks :-D But the good things is that very rarely, people realize it and apology. I wish more people would take the time as you did! Thanks!
3
@TheDimentoGraven To be fair, we still do not understand magnetism. We know it propagate in environment devoid of any perceptible matter...and that's all we know...it propagates. So, any good scientist will just admit defeat on that front and it's basically "magic". We assume there is a field we don't know of course. And we can model it etc. It even has good predictability (hence, it's a good model). We also call those "models" because we are aware that they may be totally wrong. It's also why we classify models according to their predicting abilities. As an example, for the shape of the Earth, Mathematicians quickly came with a "ball" shape. That was the model with the best predicting power. Then we went to space...and it's a ball! But it's not always that easy. A lot of model can't be confirmed as we only see "shadows". That's why most people (and not only Flat Earther) don't understand Sciences. It's not at all about the truth, it's all about validity. Sometimes, though, Sciences can bump on the truth (i.e. shape of Earth).
1
@zed1stwizard Obviously, reading course for K5 would be very beneficial to you. Yep, don't be condescending when you can't understand a text properly. If you know how magnetism propagate through void, just publish your findings! This would be the leap of the millennium.
1
@zed1stwizard Oh, and we knew it was a ball in 900BC...yes, 900 BEFORE CHRIST..
1
@robertminneman1727 You failed the reading comprehension test. Time to take serious remediation classes. There is zero excuses for arrogant ignorance. Also excessive writing to end up in the wrong. That the Earth was a ball was proved in 900BC...But it proved a MODEL. This is exactly what I was pinpointing, very few people understand sciences and you are not one of them. Go read my comments AGAIN and with a slow pace. Ponder each statement that is made, you will learn a bit about sciences. And no, I don't believe someone can read it and understand in one go...unless he already had prior understanding and it is a refresher. You see, the premise is deadly simple, but you have first to unlearn your own misconception about sciences. It's also good to have historical fact right to not be two millennium off. A good exercise is to answer these questions: - In the comment, the word "model" is employed. What is a "model" in that context ? - In the comment, you can read "Sciences seeks validity, not truth" (paraphrased). Explain with your own words. (Hint: use your answer to the first question) Good luck!
1
@TheDimentoGraven By preaching wrong, got the right thing. It's still one millennial earlier than what was said. Also, looks like you took the wrong account to reply ? Being older doesn't means you know science better. Inability to understand why models aren't the truth and why Sciences do not care is failure to understand the basic of Sciences. I do know the first comment came very hard on people because some realized they were not that much knowledgeable and other interpreted as "the Earth is not a ball, here is why". That's quite sad that ignorance is so pervasive besides rote learning.
1
@TheDimentoGraven There is nothing to debate. I already replied to your question. What you are showing is your inability to read it.
1
@robertminneman1727 I'll quote myself: <<By preaching wrong, got the right thing. It's still one millennial earlier than what was said>> By preaching wrong -> preaching is a funny way to say "write". It's still one millennial earlier than what was said. -> That means that in the reply it said "circa 1800". For that one, I can understand the confusion. I am not being childish, except memory which did not serve well. I did remember it was way before Chris. So, I was off by 600 years. Still better than a whole era though. Point was BC for that one. For the remaining, I know the words are simple, but the matter is though. Not my fault almost everyone get it wrong and not only Flat Earthers. It's one of the thing that requires you to be from the STEM fields. So, not a shame to ignore the fundamental of sciences. But shame to go on high horses about sciences when one doesn't know the ABC. The worse being being able to read that I support Flat Earth in one way or another :-D The person who did did exactly what I proposed: reread calmly and see that he misread. An adult response!
1
@robertminneman1727 That's where it becomes too subtle. In fact, even seeing the Earth from orbit is not enough as a proof. That's why we will never get to the truth and always have models. One of the first thing you learn is that we use our senses and we can augment them. (primary school, first years of secondary school) That means we perceive reality. Then we create models that fit these perceptions and can predict what we can perceive with great accuracy. A stupid example is chromacy. It's only recently that we discovered that some animals can see forbidden colors. And the knowledge of forbidden colors is recent too. Still, models we use are still accurate enough and I am not even aware of the newest models integrating these new facts. We could imagine that the Earth is "flat" (but not like a Flat Earther would imagine!) because it's an holographic projection. (Holographic principle) It doesn't even contradict our models because of locality! So, yes, I am a bit irritated when someone lectures others and you can smell the "sciences seek truth" in it. It may show by the way I answer. If you conflate "model" and "reality", then it's not sciences anymore. It's a belief. Truth is inaccessible just because we are in the cavern looking at the shadows. Again, it takes time to develop such understanding and this is why it is seeded in early ages when you learn the senses and world perception.
1
@someolddude3858 Can you read the comments AND reply to these questions: A good exercise is to answer these questions: - In the comment, the word "model" is employed. What is a "model" in that context ? - In the comment, you can read "Sciences seeks validity, not truth" (paraphrased). Explain with your own words. (Hint: use your answer to the first question) If you can't, I am not pursuing conversation with you.
1
@someolddude3858 You did put wrong word into my mouth. As you said that you like little kids, that's quite concerning. Oh, yes, that's my observation so, don't dare to question it.
1